1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part regarding the claim for the performance of the correction of the indication of the current status of the aggregate building register shall be dismissed.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Two floors among multi-household houses listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant building”) constructed on the ground of the Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”) are composed of three households.

B. On the aggregate building register of the instant building and the entire certificate of the registered matters, the owners under 201 indicated the Plaintiffs and the owners under 203 as D. On June 15, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for rectification of the number of units under the heading 201 and 203 heading 201 among the current status of the aggregate building register of the instant building.

C. As to this, the Defendant rejected the above application on the ground that it did not supplement the application for change of the building indication filed by D, the owner of the instant building No. 203, and on July 4, 2017, on the ground that it did not supplement the application within a period of time, pursuant to Article 18 of the former Rules on the entry, management, etc. of the building ledger (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 398, Jan. 20, 2017; hereinafter “Rules on Building Registers”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] The entry in Gap’s 1, 2, and 7, and Eul’s 2 through 4 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A. In the current status of the aggregate building register for the second floor of the instant building, there is an error where No. 201 was later changed by 203. This is an error where the entries in the building register were erroneous in the entries in the building register under Article 21(3) of the Rules on the Building Register, and thus, the Plaintiffs were entitled to make an application for correction independently, and if the Plaintiffs were to make an application for supplementation of D consent, the disposition rejecting the said application is contrary to the relevant laws and regulations, and is in violation of the principle of proportionality and the discretionary authority, and

B. In a case where the defendant finds an error in the entries in the building ledger pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Building Ledger, he/she may correct it ex officio.