[토지인도][공1993.6.1.(945),1390]
Where a boundary in the cadastral map is falsely prepared due to a technical error, the criteria for determining the scope of the ownership of the land (=the substantial boundary)
Where a parcel of land is registered with one parcel in the cadastral record under the Cadastral Act, the location, lot number, land category, land register, and boundary of the land shall be specified by this registration unless there are other special circumstances, and the scope of ownership shall be determined by the boundary on the public register regardless of the actual boundary, except in the case of special circumstances such as the erroneous selection of points in the cadastral map, etc., if there are special circumstances such as that the boundary on the cadastral map has been prepared differently from the true boundary, due to technical errors, such as the erroneous selection of points, etc
Article 212 of the Civil Act, Article 3 of the Cadastral Act
Supreme Court Decision 90Da12977 delivered on February 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 1050) 91Da44193 delivered on May 22, 1992 (Gong1992, 1973) 92Da36519 delivered on January 15, 1993 (Gong193,703)
Plaintiff
Attorney Park Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Gwangju District Court Decision 92Na219 delivered on October 30, 1992
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
Where a parcel of land is registered with one parcel in the cadastral record under the Cadastral Act, the location, lot number, land category, land register, and boundary of the land shall be specified by this registration unless there are other special circumstances, and the scope of the ownership shall be determined by the boundary on the public register regardless of the actual boundary, or in the preparation of the cadastral map, where there are special circumstances such as where the boundary on the cadastral map was prepared differently from the true boundary due to a technical error, such as a mistake in selecting the starting point, etc., the boundary of the land shall be based on the actual boundary (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da12977 delivered on February 22, 191).
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the non-party 1 purchased the above 3,273 square meters of forest land from the non-party 2 on September 1968 (2) and that the non-party 1 purchased the above 100 square meters of forest land from the boundary line of the non-party 2, the non-party 2, and the non-party 2, the non-party 3, and the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 4, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 4, the non-party 2, the non-party 9, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 9, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 9, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 98.
In addition, it cannot be said that the court below did not judge the assertion of entry in the briefs submitted after the closing of argument. There is no reason for the argument.
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)