Whether the act of cancelling ex officio a land cadastre by the competent authority in the cadastral record constitutes an administrative disposition subject to an appeal litigation (affirmative)

In full view of the fact that the land cadastre is the basic data of land administration, such as regulation of public law on land, imposition of development charges, imposition of local taxes, assessment of the officially announced value, calculation of compensation amount, etc., which affect legal relations under public law, and that in order to apply for registration of preservation of ownership or registration of transfer of ownership on land, the land cadastre is required to submit it to the registry. As such, the act of cancelling such land cadastre ex officio is closely related to the substantive legal relationship of the land owner as a prerequisite for the proper exercise of ownership of the land,

Article 2 (1) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff

Head of Mayang-si Mayang-si

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu38280 decided May 24, 2011

The judgment of the court of first instance is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Government District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In full view of the fact that the land cadastre is the basic data of land administration, such as regulation under the public law on land, imposition of development charges, imposition of local taxes, assessment of the officially announced value, calculation of compensation amount, etc., and that in order to apply for registration of preservation of ownership or registration of transfer of ownership on land, the land cadastre is required to submit it to the registry. As such, the act of cancelling such land cadastre ex officio is closely related to the substantive legal relationship of the landowner as a prerequisite for the proper exercise of ownership of the land, and it constitutes an administrative disposition

Unlike this, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which rejected the lawsuit of this case seeking revocation on the ground that the Defendant’s act of cancelling ex officio the land cadastre of this case owned by the plaintiff is not an administrative disposition and its revocation is not an administrative disposition, on the ground that the act of entering certain matters in the cadastral record or changing matters recorded in the cadastral record is intended to take advantage of convenience in the execution of administrative affairs and as data for certification of facts, and the scope of land ownership does not change in the substantive legal relationship with respect to the relevant land, but is not proved only by the entry in the cadastral record. Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on administrative disposition which is subject to appeal, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and since this case is sufficient for the Supreme Court to directly judge, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the case shall be remanded to the court of first instance for a new trial and determination in accordance with Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 418 of the Civil Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)