Administrative litigation (negative) seeking the cancellation of registration on the house ledger (negative)

A claim seeking administrative disposition against an administrative agency cannot be subject to an administrative litigation unless there is a special provision, and the act of registering certain matters in the house ledger is for the convenience of administrative affairs execution and the act of registering them in the house ledger, not for any change in the substantive relation of rights to the house concerned due to the act of registering them. Therefore, the act of registering the house ledger cannot be subject to an administrative disposition, and it is unlawful for a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of a registration made in the house ledger kept in the old office.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Nu135 delivered on December 22, 1970, 71Nu196 delivered on July 22, 1972, decided 80Nu461 delivered on March 23, 1982

Plaintiff

The head of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu297 delivered on July 13, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Except as otherwise provided, a claim for administrative disposition against an administrative agency cannot be subject to administrative litigation, and the act of registering certain matters in the house ledger is merely for the convenience of administrative affairs execution and the fact-finding data, and it does not result in any change in the substantive relation of rights to the relevant house due to the act of registering it. Therefore, the act of registering the house ledger cannot be subject to administrative disposition which is subject to administrative litigation.

In this regard, the court below is just in rejecting the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case against the plaintiff's request for the cancellation of registration on the house ledger installed in the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office as of May 10, 1951, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles under Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act or the incomplete deliberation.

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

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)