1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The cancellation of the part against Defendant D in the judgment of the first instance, and the cancellation part.

1. The reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance regarding this case is that the part concerning the claim against Defendant D is identical to the written judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part concerning the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., 8th to 13th 9th 9th . Of the part concerning the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., referring to the part concerning the claim against Defendant D.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant D

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant D’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is a public official belonging to I at the time, and the Plaintiff’s request for a review of cadastral survey records sent by mail around July 2012 (hereinafter “instant civil petition documents”).

(2) Defendant D’s assertion that Defendant D gave rise to mental distress, and thus, Defendant D’s claim that Defendant D returned the petition documents of this case to the Plaintiff at the Plaintiff’s request. Thus, Defendant D cannot be said to have committed a harmful act against the Plaintiff. Since Defendant D returned the petition documents of this case at the Plaintiff’s request, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff received a written request for review of legality and received a review of legality, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff suffered mental distress.

Therefore, Defendant D’s above act does not constitute tort against the Plaintiff.

Even if Defendant D’s act of returning the instant civil petition documents is considered as a tort, it is not an act committed by Defendant D while performing his duties as a public official, and thus, Defendant D does not directly bear the liability for tort against the Plaintiff.

B. Article 29(2) of the former Land Survey, Waterway Survey and Cadastral Records Act (amended by Act No. 12738, Jun. 3, 2014; hereinafter “Land Survey Act”) provides that a Mayor/Do Governor shall investigate within 30 days the request for review of the legality of a cadastral survey under Article 29(2) of the same Act.