Whether a correction of cadastral map constitutes an administrative disposition subject to an administrative litigation (negative)

The act of correcting the cadastral map, which is the cadastral record, is to take the convenience of administrative affairs and the fact-finding data, and it does not cause any change in the substantive legal relationship, so it cannot be an administrative disposition which is the object of administrative litigation.

Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 38 of the Cadastral Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Lee Jae-Jon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The head of Dongdaemun-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu5081 delivered on December 6, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

Since the act of correcting the cadastral map, which is the cadastral record, is aimed at using it as data for convenience in administrative affairs and certification of facts, and does not cause any change in the substantive relationship of rights, it cannot be an administrative disposition that is the object of administrative litigation. It is the established case of party members, and there is no need to modify it.

In the same purport, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case, which is based on the premise that the defendant's correction in the cadastral map is an administrative disposition, is justified, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

As long as it is correct to determine that the act of correction in the cadastral map is not an administrative disposition subject to an administrative litigation, even if the court below's decision on the procedure of the previous trial was erroneous, the conclusion that the lawsuit of this case was dismissed is not the complaint, and there is no other ground for appeal that the court below erred in the judgment of the court below on the ground of the reasons on the merits

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)