(a) Where the current status of land which is the object of sale is indicated differently from the boundary on the cadastral record, the scope of ownership of land subject to sale (=land on the cadastral record);

B. Whether it can be deemed that the actual boundary was traded with the knowledge of the boundary as the boundary of the site in a manner that does not know that the actual boundary is different from the boundary on the cadastral record, and that the object of the transaction was specified according to the actual boundary (negative)

A. Even if the boundary indication in the cadastral map was indicated differently from the de facto boundary due to the error of partition surveying, etc., it shall be deemed that the party to the transaction did not intend to trade the land whose ownership scope has been determined by the cadastral record, but has purchased and sold the land as de facto boundary with an intention to trade the land as de facto boundary, barring special circumstances, such as the parcel number, land category, cadastral record, and boundary indicated in the cadastral record,

B. It cannot be deemed that the parties to the transaction have specified the subject matter of transaction, regardless of the boundary on the public cadastral book, because the parties to the transaction sold the land with knowledge of the actual boundary as the boundary of the site, while the actual boundary of the land is different from that on the public cadastral book.

Article 563 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2261 decided Feb. 24, 1987 (Gong1987,526) (Gong1991,1339) decided Apr. 9, 1991; Supreme Court Decision 91Da32961,32978 decided Nov. 21, 1992 (Gong1992,88); Supreme Court Decision 84Meu2344 decided Nov. 12, 1985 (Gong1986,16); Supreme Court Decision 86Da1380 decided Dec. 23, 1986 (Gong1987,231); Supreme Court Decision 90Da12977 decided Feb. 22, 1991 (Gong191,1050)

[Defendant-Counterclaim] Plaintiff 1 and seven others, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellee)

Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Attorney Park Sang-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 90Na7545, 7552 decided Oct. 1, 1992

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (including those stated in the supplementary statement of grounds of appeal).

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the above part of the non-party 1, who was the owner of the non-party 614 square meters in Ulsan-si, Ulsan-si, Ulsan-si, the non-party 1, who was the owner of the non-party 614 square meters prior to Ulsan-si, sold part of the land to the non-party 2, and the non-party 2 resided in two houses on that ground; the non-party 2 again specified part of the remaining part of the remaining part of the land to the defendant (the non-party 2, the non-party 5, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, who was the owner of the above land, owned the soil fence and the drainage thereof at the time of the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the co-party 5, who was the heir, was not in accord with the land boundary of the plaintiff 4 and the non-party 2, who was not in title trust.

(2) However, even if the boundary indication in the cadastral map is clearly indicated differently from the actual boundary due to the mistake of partition, etc., it shall be deemed that the party to the sale and purchase of the land whose ownership scope has been determined by the cadastral record is not an intention to sell and purchase the land as actual boundary, and unless there are special circumstances such as the fact that the land was purchased and sold with an intention to sell and purchase the land as actual boundary, and it shall be deemed that the land whose ownership scope has been determined by the lot number, land category, land register, and boundary indicated in the cadastral record regardless of the actual boundary (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da32961, 32978 delivered on January 21, 192). The party to the sale and purchase of the land was not aware that the actual boundary of the land is different from the boundary in the cadastral record at the time of the purchase and sale, and it shall not be deemed that the party to the sale and purchase of the land was an unlawful act of specifying the object of the purchase and sale by Nonparty 2, who is the party to the above cadastral record.

(3) Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)