[1] The case holding that it is difficult to view that only if the land boundary is demarcated on the boundary of the land on the cadastral map and the cadastral map and "464 Do" is located within the boundary of the land, it is difficult to view that the investigation of ownership under the related Acts and subordinate statutes such as the Land Survey Decree

[2] Whether a “survey and a survey” under the Land Survey Order may be deemed to have been conducted if a land was investigated and surveyed at the time of a land survey project and entered in the cadastral map but did not constitute a “survey of Ownership” under the Land Survey Order (negative), and whether in such case, if the land is within a forest and the cadastral area is less than a single cadastral area, and if the land is less than 10 percent of the cadastral area of a forest, it shall be deemed that a combined survey and a survey were conducted

[1] The case holding that it is not enough to recognize that the land was subject to the investigation of the ownership under the related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Land Investigation Decree, on the sole basis of the fact that the boundary of the land was demarcated on the land by detail surveying source and cadastral map and the "464 Do" was stated therein, and there is no such investigation of the ownership, and it is difficult to view that there was a situation under the Land Investigation Decree with regard to the land

[2] Even if the land was investigated and surveyed at the time of the implementation of the land survey project and indicated the location, lot number, land category, boundary, etc. in the cadastral map, if the land was not a "survey and Survey under the Land Survey Order" as to the land, this constitutes not a "survey and Survey under the Land Survey Order." Thus, if the land is mixed within the forest within one parcel, and the total cadastral area is less than 10 percent of the forest cadastral area, it shall be deemed that the land was consolidated into the forest and field, and if it is less than 10 percent of the forest cadastral area

[1] Articles 2 and 9 of the former Decree on Land Survey (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2, Aug. 13, 1912); Articles 17, 21, and 31 of the former Regulations on the Investigation of Land Research by the General of Shipbuilding and the Provisional Land Survey Bureau (repealed by Presidential Decree No. 33, Jun. 13, 1913) / [2] Articles 1 and 20 of the former Decree on the Investigation of Land and Arts (repealed by Presidential Decree No. 5, May 1, 1918); Article 25 of the former Enforcement Decree on the Investigation of Land and Arts (Abolition by Presidential Decree No. 59, Nov. 26, 1918)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Park Jong-dong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Busan District Court Decision 94Na7581 delivered on December 7, 1994

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff’s land size was located within 2,000 square meters on September 30, 1972 with respect to the land lot number of 2,876 square meters; (b) deemed that the land was located within 2,000 square meters on the boundary line of 3,00 square meters on the boundary line of 4,000 square meters; (c) determined that the registration of ownership transfer was made on April 28, 1987 under the name of Nonparty 2, which was located within the boundary line of 3,000, and that the land was located within 1,000 square meters on the boundary line of 2,000 square meters on the boundary line of 4,000 square meters on the boundary line of 2,000 square meters on the boundary line of 3,000 square meters on the boundary line of 1,000 square meters on the boundary line of 3,000 square meters on the land cadastral map.

2. However, the lower court’s determination that the relevant public official at the time of registration of the assessment of the forest land ( Address 2 omitted) is not acceptable for the following reasons, on the ground that: (a) as at the time of registration of the assessment of the circumstances with regard to forest land, the relevant public official mispercing that ( Address 2 omitted) part (B) of the said clerical error is included in the boundary of forest land ( Address 2 omitted); and (b) as at the time of registration of the assessment of the circumstances, the boundary of the forest land in the forestry map is prepared differently from the real boundary; and (c) thereby, the land

The Director of the Provisional Land Survey Bureau (No. 2 of August 13, 1912), the Enforcement Decree of the Land Survey (No. 6 of August 13, 1912; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Rule"), the General Rules of the Land Survey Bureau (No. 33 of June 1913; hereinafter referred to as the "survey Regulations"), the General Rules of the Land Survey Bureau (No. 21 of April 1913; hereinafter referred to as the "Land Survey Regulations") provides that the owner of the land shall not be subject to the investigation of the land under the provisions of Article 4 of the Decree, Article 10 of the Enforcement Rule, Article 10 of the Land Survey Regulations, and Article 6 through 8 of the Decree on Land Survey (No. 3 of the Decree on Land Survey) and that the owner of the land shall be subject to the investigation of the said Article, and if he/she completes the investigation of the said provisions, he/she shall not make a final public notification of the land survey and cadastral map.

On the other hand, if the shipbuilding Decree (Ordinance No. 5, May 1, 1918; hereinafter referred to as the "Forest Decree") provides that if the land is less than 1, it shall be deemed that the land is less than 1,000 won and is less than 3, it shall be deemed that the land is less than 1,000 won and the land is less than 1,00 won and it shall be deemed that the land is less than 1,000 won and less than 1,000 won and it shall be deemed that the land is less than 1,000 won and less than 1,00 won, and it shall be deemed that the land is less than 2,00 won and less than 1,000 won, and it shall not be deemed that the land is less than 1,000 won and less than 1,000 won, and it shall be deemed that the land is less than 1,000 won and less than 2,000 won, and it shall be deemed that the land is less than 1,0,0.

In the instant case, as seen earlier, the part (B) is deemed not to have completed the investigation of the ownership under the Land Investigation Ordinance, and according to the record, there is room to view that the part (b) is located in the forest where the part (243 square meters) is located in the forest and field, and the area is less than one square meter (300 square meters, 91 square meters), which is less than 243 square meters and is less than one square meter (14 square meters in total (14 square meters in the portion (a) that the Plaintiff voluntarily withdrawn from the original trial; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the entire area of forest and field is less than five square meters (15,174 square meters in the forest and field) and is less than 10 square meters in the entire area of forest and field, (b) part 243 square meters in the forest and field are less than 243 square meters in accordance with the aforementioned statutes.

Therefore, the court below should have examined this point. However, the court below's determination that the registered part (b) is included in the boundary of forest land ( Address 2 omitted) in the forestry map with a size of 243 square meters based only on the evidence adopted and the facts recognized by the court below was due to the error of the relevant public official's office affairs or the preparation of the boundary of forest land map differently from the true boundary without any evidence, which affected the judgment. The part pointing this out in the grounds of appeal is with merit.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)