Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Gun (Attorney Na Jae-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

May 22, 2008

Gwangju District Court Decision 2007Guhap2104 Decided November 15, 2007

1. Each of the plaintiffs' appeals is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's rejection of the application for land category change against the plaintiffs on May 14, 2007 shall be revoked.

1. The issues of the instant case and the propriety of the judgment of the first instance court

The key issue of the instant case is whether the “case where the use of land is changed” under Article 16(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Act is interpreted as the possibility of using the land permitted by the Act or also includes the case where the actual use status is changed.

On December 31, 1969, the first instance court purchased and owned 7,240 square meters of forest land at ○○-ri (number omitted) on the south-gun, Jeonsung-gun, the instant land. On August 20, 191, Plaintiff 1, 2, and 3, who were his wife, shared 1/3 shares by mutual agreement and division, respectively. On May 9, 2007, the Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for the change of the land category of the instant land from “forest” on the ground that the Plaintiff was actually using the instant land as “previous,” but the Defendant’s request was rejected on May 14, 2007 for the change of land category on the ground that “the instant land did not implement the prior legal procedure for the change of land category.” Meanwhile, the lower court’s determination on May 14, 2007, which acknowledged the possibility of changing the land category and quality of the instant land without legitimate change of the Plaintiffs’ land category.

2. cite and conclusion of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance;

Therefore, the reason why this court is to be used in this decision is the same as the entry in the column of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is citing it as it is by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Donsung (Presiding Judge)