[토지인도 ][하집1999-1, 74]
The method of correction, where an error has occurred in the boundary indication due to an error in the cadastral map prepared in the course of re-preparation, and where it is in comparison with the previous cadastral map, such error may be easily verified, but it is impossible to take the procedure of ex officio correction or correction.
In general, in a case where a certain land is registered with one parcel of land in the cadastral record, the location, lot number, land category, land category, and boundary of the land are actually specified by the relevant registration, barring any special circumstances, barring any other special circumstance, the scope of ownership of the said land shall be determined by the boundary on the cadastral record. However, if there are special circumstances, such as where the cadastral map was mistakenly prepared in the course of a re-preparation and where it is possible to confirm the error in the boundary even if it is compared only with the previous cadastral map and the cadastral map re-preparationd, it shall be corrected ex officio or by filing an application in accordance with the Cadastral Act, but if it is impossible to take such procedure, it may be corrected through
Article 212 of the Civil Act, Article 38(1) of the Cadastral Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Doz., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Long-time (Attorney Jung-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Korea
1. It is confirmed that 369/923 of the amount of 223 square meters inside a ship, which connects each point of 625 square meters in sequence among the real estate listed in the separate sheet among the Plaintiff and the Defendant, is owned by the Plaintiff, and that 369/10 of the amount of 223 square meters inside a ship, which connects each point of 625 square meters in sequence among the real estate listed in the separate sheet.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
The same shall apply to the order.
1. Basic facts
The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or there is no reflective evidence as to Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2-1 through 3, 3-1 through 3, 4-1 through 2, 5-1, and 5.
A. In the case of the Plaintiff’s ownership, the Plaintiff was located in a ship that connects each point of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s land indicated in the attached drawings, (b), (c), (d), (e), (e), (g), (i), (k), (k), (i), (l), and (vi) the number of land in order to connect each point of the Plaintiff’s own.
B. However, in the process of remaking a cadastral map around 1971, the location of the previous parcel number land in this case was erroneously indicated by mistake of the competent authority that the location of the previous parcel number land is located in the ship connecting each point of the Annex A, B, C, D, E, F, Car, Car, other, and A in sequence.
C. On the other hand, on December 28, 1976, the Plaintiff: (a) sold 21 m21 m2 (2,251 m2) among the previous lot number land in this case to the Defendant on December 28, 1976; (b) divided the remainder of 923 m25 m2,00 in the attached list into the previous lot number land (hereinafter “instant land”); (c) the land was divided into the previous lot number land by dividing the remaining 923m2,00 in the order of each of the items indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “the land sold in this case”); (d) on the cadastral map of this case, the land was divided into a relationship based on the above erroneous cadastral map in the order of 298m2 (attached Form No. 5, 9,00,000 m2,000,0000 m25 m2,000 m2,000 m25 m2,000 m2.
D. After that, while the plaintiff requested correction of the above cadastral map against the defendant, but the defendant did not correct it, on September 29, 1997, transferred 554/923 of the ownership of the land of this case divided as above to the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City on September 29, 199, and thereafter owned 369/923 of the remainder.
2. Determination:
In general, in a case where a certain land is registered with one parcel of land in the cadastral record, the scope of ownership of such land shall be determined by the boundary on the cadastral record unless there are other special circumstances. However, even if the cadastral map was prepared in a re-preparation process and the cadastral map re-preparationd with the previous cadastral map are compared only with the cadastral map, if there are special circumstances, it shall be corrected ex officio or upon application in accordance with the Cadastral Act. However, if it is impossible to take such procedures, it may be corrected through the judgment of the lawsuit for confirmation of boundary or for confirmation of ownership by the interested right holder. As seen above, the current cadastral map of the land of this case was clearly prepared by the mistake of the relevant public official in the process of re-preparation on around 1971, the land of this case shall be determined by the boundary on the cadastral record, regardless of the current cadastral map indication, the land of this case shall be determined by the annexed map, the annexed map, Da, Da, d, e, and Ga, in order.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, 369/923 of the size of 223 square meters in a ship connecting each point of 625 square meters in sequence among the real estate indicated in the attached list, among the real estate indicated in the attached list, the attached drawing indication A, B, C, D, E, and D, which are in line connected each point of 625 square meters in the ship, is clear that 369/10 of the size of 223 square meters in the ship is owned by the plaintiff, and as long as the defendant contests it based on the cadastral indication written by the defendant, it is recognized that there is a benefit to seek confirmation. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking such confirmation is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89 of the Civil
Judges Dohn (Presiding Judge) Don (Presiding Judge)