[손해배상(기)][공1997.1.1.(25),21]
Where a substitute lot area has been registered more than the actual substitute area due to a mistake of a public official at the time of the substitute lot registration, and the area entered in the public register has been reduced due to a correction of the cadastral record, the case rejecting the claim
Where a substitute lot area has been registered more than the actual substitute area due to a mistake of a public official at the time of a substitute lot registration, and the public record area has been reduced due to a correction of the cadastral record, the reduced area in the public record is not recognized as to the site, but it exists only in the public record by a procedural error, and the correction of the overlapping boundary with neighboring land is merely a correction of the area actually existing, that is, the land area for the site is a substitute lot, and the land owner has actually lost or has to have acquired the land as a matter of course. Thus, barring special circumstances such as where a land owner calculated the purchase price based on the unit area at the time of the purchase of the site and paid more the purchase price corresponding to the decreased area, it cannot be deemed that damage has occurred due to a correction of the relevant cadastral record.
Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Young-chul and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Plaintiff
Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Law Firm Hong, Attorney Kim Jong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Seoul District Court Decision 96Na14035 delivered on July 11, 1996
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The plaintiff's ground of appeal is also examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that, after the defendant implemented a land readjustment project in the Hanhee District and registered the land substitution disposition, the area of the neighboring land located in the cadastral map of 1/1200 of the original accumulation and rearrangement project and registered it, it was 10.3 square meters in the site in Mapo-gu ( Address 1 omitted) and 8.4 square meters in the site in the land cadastral map of 1/600 of the public official responsible for the erroneous accumulation and registration of the boundary of neighboring land located outside the above rearrangement and rearrangement project, and the boundary of the adjoining land overlaps with each adjacent land. The boundary of the adjoining land is also registered in the previous cadastral map, but the boundary of the next cadastral map was corrected in the previous cadastral map and the area of the land cadastre was reduced to the above overlapping area. The court below did not have any special reason to recognize that there was no difference in the area of the substitute land or the area of the land actually reduced to the extent that the plaintiff did not actually acquire the above land due to the price of the land.
In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or experience rules, such as theory of lawsuit, or incomplete deliberation. All arguments are without merit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)