1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In full view of the selected evidence, the court below found that the construction work plan for an erosion control of 1932 square meters was 169 square meters of 169 forest land, 170 square meters of 170 forest land, 171 square meters of 171 square meters of 174 square meters of 174 square meters of 174 square meters of 1932, and that the owner of 362 forest land was the non-party who is the father of 169, 170, 171 forest land, and 174 square meters of 17,000 square meters of 16,000 square meters of 17,000 square meters of 37,000 square meters of 17,000 square meters of 16,000 square meters of 17,000 square meters of 16,000 forest land and 17,000 square meters of 16,000 square meters of 16.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3

In a case where a certain land is registered for the restoration of land in the cadastral record, the location, lot number, land category, land register, and boundary of the land shall be presumed to have been restored as it is, unless there are special circumstances, such as that the relevant public official erroneously prepared the cadastral record due to clerical error in the course of the recovery of the cadastral record, the burden of proof for special circumstances, such as the location, lot number, land category, land register, and boundary of the land before the restoration of the cadastral record, and that the cadastral record was mistakenly prepared due to clerical error of the relevant public official, shall be the party who asserts it (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da

In this case, when considering the above incorporation drawings of forest land in the Japanese colonial era, the former 170, 171 forest land was restored to almost identical location and shape in the 176 forest land after the cadastral restoration. However, the number is deemed to have been assigned differently from the previous land like other surrounding land, and the defendant Chuncheon City tried to restore the land similar to the previous boundary by preparing and publicly announcing the surveying cost and the cadastral restoration report protocol, but in case of the lot number, there is no data to refer to the previous lot number in the case of the adjoining land, and there is a possibility that the previous lot number may be newly set in a lump sum, considering all other matters, it is reasonable to regard the same as the number of the forest land in the previous 171 forest land and the cadastral restoration at all as the same time as other land in the previous area.

Therefore, the cadastral record concerning 171 forest land after the restoration of land is a case where the competent public official's error was made in the course of the restoration. Thus, since each of the real estate in this case, which was divided from 171 forest land after the restoration of land, is the same forest land as that of 170,171 forest land after the restoration of land, and the plaintiff's primary claim under the premise that it is owned by the plaintiff is without any further consideration, it is justifiable to dismiss the above main claim. The judgment of the court below which dismissed the above main claim is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the omission of judgment, the lack of reasons,

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)