Whether an act of refusing an application for issuance of ownership certificate of an unregistered building that has not been prepared by the house register is a disposition that is subject to appeal litigation (negative)

Article 131 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act provides that "a certificate issued by an administrative agency in the course of handling its own business, such as a property tax payment certificate, shall be deemed as a material verifying ownership of the building and registered for preservation in a case where there is probative value that proves ownership of the building by the administrative agency in the course of handling its business, and the above provision shall not be deemed as a provision that directly grants the administrative agency the right to apply for the issuance of ownership certificate, or that the administrative agency imposes an obligation to determine whether to issue ownership certificate by confirming ownership relation. Thus, the rejection of an application for the issuance of ownership certificate by an administrative agency shall not be deemed a disposition that is subject to appeal litigation.

Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 131 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Kim Uniform-sik

The head of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant's refusal to certify ownership against the plaintiff on May 16, 1991 shall be revoked on the 5th and the 6th floor of the building listed in attached Form 2.

According to the sale in lots to 26 members, including the plaintiff, of the 5th and the 6th apartment house which was extended by the extension of the building listed in the attached Table 1, which is the existing building, to the building listed in the attached Table 2, the purchaser of the 5th and the 6th apartment house from March 1990. The plaintiff tried to issue a provisional disposition against the non-party company as to the part of the extended building in dispute over the validity of the sale plan for the part of the building, but the completion inspection on the above extension was not completed, the non-party company could not be issued a copy of the house register under Article 131 subparagraph 1 of the Registration of Real Estate Act because the non-party company failed to submit the ownership certification data under each subparagraph of Article 131 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, which is necessary for the preservation of ownership in the future of the non-party company, and the application for provisional disposition was rejected, based on Article 131 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, the plaintiff did not request the plaintiff to issue the ownership certificate to the non-party.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant did not accept the application for the issuance of ownership certificate under Article 131 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, even though the above extension is recognized as owned by the non-party company by imposing acquisition tax on the non-party company on July 25, 1990.

In order for an administrative agency to become an administrative disposition against which an administrative agency's refusal against a citizen's application becomes an administrative disposition against which an appeal litigation is filed, the administrative agency must have a right under law or sound reasoning to demand an administrative act according to the citizen's application. If an administrative agency refuses to accept a citizen's application which is not in accordance with such a right and refuses to do so, it does not affect the applicant's right or legal interest, and it cannot be viewed as an administrative disposition which is subject to an appeal litigation

However, Article 131 of the Registration of Real Estate Act provides that registration of preservation of ownership of a building may be applied only to a person who proves ownership by a certain verification, and Article 2 of the same Act provides that "a person who proves his/her ownership by a written document from the head of Si/Gu/Eup/Myeon" as one of the persons with such proof. However, the "a person who proves his/her ownership by the head of Si/Gu/Eup/Myeon" as provided in subparagraph 2 of the same Article means that where a certificate issued by an administrative agency in the course of handling his/her business, such as a property tax payment certificate, has probative value as proof of ownership of a building, it shall be recognized as a document proving ownership of the building so that the registration of preservation may be made. The above subparagraph 2 of the same Article cannot be deemed as a provision that grants an administrative agency the right to request the issuance of ownership certificate to a person directly, or allows the administrative agency to confirm ownership and imposes an obligation to issue the ownership certificate. Therefore, even if the defendant refused to issue the plaintiff's application, it cannot be deemed unlawful.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Yong-soo (Presiding Judge)