The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Where a parcel of land is registered with one parcel in the cadastral record under the Cadastral Act, the location, lot number, land category, cadastre, and boundary of such land shall be specified by this registration unless there are special circumstances, and the scope of ownership shall be determined by the boundary on the public register regardless of the actual boundary;

Therefore, regardless of the actual boundary, the transaction of the land shall be deemed to be the subject of the transaction of the land determined by the boundary on the cadastral record and by the cadastral record, and because of technical errors such as the error of selecting the starting point in the preparation of the cadastral map, the boundary on the cadastral map was prepared differently from the true boundary.

Since the boundary and cadastral records come to be inconsistent with the actual situation since the construction of several buildings on one parcel of land and the construction of a fence was installed on the boundary of each building and sold them by de facto dividing them into the site of each building, and the boundary and cadastral records became inconsistent with the actual situation. Even if the land was sold before the sale, if there are special circumstances, such as cases where the parties have an intention to purchase and sell the land as the actual boundary, the boundary of the land shall be deemed to be in accordance with the actual boundary.

(See Supreme Court Decision 90Da12977 delivered on February 22, 191, etc.). Moreover, in cases where a sales contract indicates one or more parcels of land on the register as an object of sale and purchase, barring special circumstances, the subject matter of sale and purchase shall be deemed to be the entire parcel of land or several lots of land. Even if a party to a sale and purchase concluded a sales contract with a false knowledge of a part of land de facto boundary mark with a fence, etc. at the time of sale and purchase as a whole, it cannot be deemed that only the part of land on the wall is subject to sale and purchase, unless there are special circumstances

Supreme Court Decision 198Do458 delivered on April 2, 1986