[1] In a case where the actual area of land and the forestry register and the area in the register are inconsistent with each other, the scope of the land ownership

[2] In a case where the indication area in the title section of the real estate register differs significantly from the actual area according to the forestry map, the validity of the above registration shall be invalidated (negative)

[3] The case recognizing the scope of the land to be traded as the actual area in the forestry map, where the actual area, the forestry book, and the area on the registry are the whole of another land

[4] The case holding that in a case where the actual area, the forestry book and the area on the registry in the forestry map have been previously traded and the purchaser occupied more area than that on the cadastral record, the case holding that the entire land has been occupied frequently

[5] Whether an administrative agency’s rejection of an application for revision of registered matters in the cadastral record constitutes an administrative disposition subject to an administrative litigation (negative)

[6] In a case where the registration is null and void because the area of indication on the registry is much smaller than the actual area in the forestry map, whether the purchaser can file a civil suit against the original owner and seek the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer (affirmative with qualification)

[1] The scope of the ownership of one parcel of land is determined by the boundary on the cadastral map and its specific boundary is determined by the boundary on the cadastral map or the forestry map. Thus, in the case where the actual area of the land according to the forestry map, the forest land register and the area on the registry are different, the boundary over which the ownership of the said forest is affected by the said forest land shall be within the boundary on the said forestry map, and the said area

[2] In general, even if there are some errors or errors in the indication of the title section of the real estate register, where the registration is recognized as identical or similar to the degree sufficient to indicate the actual relation of rights, such registration shall be valid. However, if the actual area according to the forestry register and the area of the register are considerably different and the error in the indication is so serious that it cannot be recognized as identical to the actual relation, the above registration book concerning the forest above shall not be effective.

[3] The case holding that in a case where the real area, the forestry cadastral book, and the area on the registry are the whole-out sale of different lands in the forestry cadastral map, the parties' intentions should be regarded as the object of the said sale of the lands which are confirmed by the boundaries

[4] The case holding that since the above purchaser did not know that the actual area and the forest area in the forestry cadastral map and the forest cadastral book and the area in the registry are much larger than the area in the cadastral record, in case where the purchaser occupied the forest and the neighboring land at the time of the purchase of the forest and the above purchaser purchased the forest and the neighboring land at the same time, the above purchaser used the forest and the surrounding land without making boundaries among the above forest and the above forest and used the same as a single parcel, and the current situation is a broad area where the survey for land category change was conducted and the difference in the above area was discovered, the above purchaser did not know that the above purchaser exceeded the area in the forest and the above area in the forestry cadastral book and the registration book and the above area was much larger than the area in the

[5] In a case where the area and the area of the forestry cadastral map are different, the purchaser may apply for the correction of the registered area under Article 38 of the Cadastral Act, but the buyer's act of entering certain matters in the forestry cadastral book is merely for the convenience of the execution of administrative affairs and the certification of facts, and it does not cause any change in the substantive legal relationship of the forest concerned due to the act of registering it, and thus, it shall not be deemed an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation.

[6] In a case where the registration is null and void because the area indicated on the registry is much smaller than the actual area in the forestry map, there is a benefit to seek the procedure for ownership transfer registration against the original owner as long as the said forest land is already able to verify its location by the forestry map, and its lot number is set, and it is possible to specify it.

[1] Article 3 of the Cadastral Act, Article 186, / [2] Article 186, / [3] Article 563 of the Civil Act, Article 3, / [4] Article 197 (1), Article 245 (1), / [5] Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 3 of the Cadastral Act, Article 245 of the Civil Act, Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act / [6]

[1]

Supreme Court Decision 86Da2924 delivered on April 27, 1988 (Gong1988, 899); Supreme Court Decision 91Da3185 delivered on March 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 1251); Supreme Court Decision 96Da36296, 36302 delivered on November 26, 1996

/ [2] Supreme Court en banc Decision 74Da2188 Decided April 22, 1975 (Gong1975, 8415), Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2358 Decided January 31, 1989 (Gong1989, 340), Supreme Court Decision 95Da22849, 22856 Decided September 29, 195 (Gong195Ha, 3617)

[4] Supreme Court Decision 96Da30199 decided Nov. 28, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 42)

/ [5] Supreme Court Decision 90Nu705 delivered on February 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 1001), Supreme Court Decision 91Nu8357 delivered on December 24, 1991 (Gong1992, 706), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu9747 delivered on December 12, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 416)

[6] Supreme Court Decision 95Da14794 delivered on July 30, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2630), Supreme Court Decision 96Da30199 Delivered on November 28, 1997 (Gong198Sang, 42)

1. The term “public interest” means “public interest” means “public interest” or “public interest” means

Korea

1. On June 26, 1995, the Defendant shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the prescriptive acquisition on June 26, 1995 with respect to the forest land of 177,521 square meters in Yongsan-dong, Jeju-do.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

In electively, it is confirmed that real estate recorded in the order is owned by the Plaintiff or between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, or between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, it is confirmed that the land recorded in the order is 17,521 square meters of land in Yongsan-dong, Jeju-do.

1. Fact-related relationship;

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 6 (each copy of forest register), Gap evidence 2 (each copy of forest register), Gap evidence 3 (forest map), Gap evidence 4 (cadastral map), Gap evidence 5-1, 2 (each copy of cadastral map), Gap evidence 8-1 through 7 (each copy of cadastral map), Gap evidence 9-5 (each survey result map), Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 11, Eul evidence 11, Eul evidence 11-2 (forest survey result map), Eul evidence 11-1, 2 (project plan), 3 (written consent for use), and 12 (written consent for permission for the development of grassland), and the results of the appraisal of a sexual suit and the results of the verification of the previous arguments of this court.

가. 임야도상 별지도면 ㄱ, ㄷ, ㄹ, ㅁ, ㅂ, ㅅ, ㅇ, ㅈ, ㅊ, ㅌ, ㅍ, ㅎ, ㄱ1, ㅎ2, ㄱ3, ㄴ3, ㄷ3, ㄹ3, ㅁ3, ㅈ5, ㅊ5, ㅋ5, ㅌ5, ㅍ5, ㅎ5, ㅇ4, ㅅ4, ㅁ4, ㅂ4, ㄷ2, ㄹ2, ㄱ의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선은 지적선으로서 선내 부분은 1필지의 토지로 구획되어 있다. 그리고 위 구획 부분은 제주시 용강동 산 6으로 지번이 부여되어 있고, 그 지목은 임야로 되어 있다. 그 면적은 177,521㎡로서 약 17정 9단보이다(이하 위 선내 구획 부분을 이 사건 임야라 한다).

B. On July 30, 1919, the forest of this case was investigated as one parcel at the time of the forest survey conducted in the Japanese colonial era, and was circumstances in the future of the defendant on July 30, 1919. However, when the forest of this case was prepared, the forest of this case was entered as the 7th single single 9 square meters (=78,347 square meters) where the previous 1's area was omitted without being entered as the 17th single 9 single 9 square meters. In addition, the forest of this case, based on the above forest register, is also entered as the 7th single 9 single mar.

C. Thereafter, the owner on the land cadastre of the forest of this case was transferred in order of the plaintiff on June 4, 1943, on May 28, 1966, on July 30, 196, on the non-party Park Jong-jin et al., and four others on July 20, 1970, on June 9, 1972, on the non-party Cho Jong-ho, and on June 26, 1975. The registration of ownership preservation was made in order of the plaintiff on June 12, 1962. The registration of ownership preservation was made in the order of the above Park Jong-jin on June 28, 196, and the above registration of ownership transfer was made in the order of June 28, 196.

D. On June 26, 1975, the Plaintiff purchased a forest of this case and the forest of this case together with 385,686m2 in Jeju-dong, Yongsan-dong, Jeju-do, the boundary between the forest of this case and the forest of this case. From that time, the Plaintiff purchased the housing of this case and the housing of this case and the housing of this case 5m3,686m2. From that time, the Plaintiff also purchased the housing of this case. However, according to the cadastral line, as if 19m2 was formed between the forest of this case and the forest of this case and the forest of this case, the land division was made, but the actual situation was not clear at any time, but the real situation was formed two to the forest of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “attached drawing”, hereinafter referred to as the “part and f).

마. 원고는 1988.경부터는 이 사건 임야에 초지 조성 작업도 하며, 실제 하천쪽으로 우마가 내려가지 못하도록 하천 변을 따라 철조망을 치는가 하면 소유 임야의 일부 경계 부분이나 경계가 아닌 별지도면 표시 '사' 부분과 '아' 부분 사이인 ㅇ4, ㅈ4, ㅊ4, ㅋ4, ㅌ4, ㅍ4, ㅎ4, ㄱ5, ㄴ5, ㄷ5, ㄹ5, ㅁ5, ㅂ5, ㅅ5, ㅇ5, ㅋ3의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선상에도 방목 구획을 위해 철조망을 쳐서 관리하였다. 그리고 철조망 밖으로 벗어나 위 '아' 부분 역시 우마들을 위한 목초지로 사용하며 관리하여 왔다.

G. On June 10, 1997, the Plaintiff discovered that there was a difference between the size and the forest land register according to the forestry map as above, and the area on the register, while conducting a survey to apply for a change in the national land utilization plan in order to construct a golf course in the forest of this case.

2. Determination:

A. Validity of existing registration

The scope of the ownership of one parcel of land is determined by the boundary on the cadastral map or the forestry map, and the specific boundary is determined by the boundary on the cadastral map or the forestry map. Therefore, according to the above-mentioned facts, the boundary over the ownership of the forest of this case is within the boundary on the said forestry map, and therefore, the area is that the actual area according to the forestry map is the lawful area, not the area on the forestry book (and even if the size of the forestry map or the forestry book is changed due to an error in the course of the preparation of the forestry book as seen above,

However, even if there are some errors or errors in the indication of the title section of the real estate register, if such errors or errors are recognized as identical or similar to the degree sufficient to indicate the actual relation of rights, such registration shall be valid. However, such as the above recognition facts, in a case where the actual area according to the forestry register and the area on the register is smaller than 100,000 square meters, such errors in the indication cannot be recognized as identical to the actual relation, and thus, the above registration register concerning the forest of this case shall not be effective. Ultimately, the entire forest of this case is owned by the defendant, and the entire forest of this case is identical to the unregistered real estate at the time of the circumstance, and

B. Whether to recognize the prescriptive acquisition

In the event that the forest land of this case was sold prior to the sale in the forestry map, the parties' intention is the object of the sale of the land determined by the boundary in the forestry map. [Therefore, even if the defendant, as alleged by the defendant, sold the forest land of this case to the above Park Park Do, it shall not be deemed that the land determined by the boundary in the forestry map is the object of the sale, and it shall not be deemed that only 78,347 square meters out of the forest land of this case was the object of the sale. Furthermore, the defendant argued that the calculation of the price at the time when the forest of this case was rejected was based on the usual appraisal price, so it shall be deemed that the sale was not made at the time except for the sale volume at the time. However, it is difficult to view the sale of the forest of this case as the object of the sale in this case, Eul evidence No. 4-1, Eul (Real Estate Sales Contract), Eul (Land Disposition), Eul evidence No. 7 (Land Disposition), Eul, Eul evidence No. 8 (Report No. 97) as to the sale of the forest land of this case.

Furthermore, the forest land of this case is a single parcel. The plaintiff purchased the forest land of this case 5,686 square meters and the land for a neighboring 5,000 square meters and 385,686 square meters and the land for a neighboring 5,000 square meters, the plaintiff used the forest land of this case and the land for a neighboring 5,000 square meters as one parcel without establishing a boundary between the forest of this case and the above 5,000, and its current status was a large area of grassland, and the difference in the above area was found in the survey to construct a golf course in the forest of this case around June 10, 197. In light of the above, the plaintiff did not know that the area of the forest of this case exceeds 10,000 square meters compared to the area on the forestry register or on the register. Accordingly, the plaintiff's possession of the entire forest of this case is an autonomous possession. Thus, the plaintiff acquired the forest of this case as of June 26, 1975.

Meanwhile, as in this case, in a case where the area of the forestry map and the area in the forestry map are different, the plaintiff may file an application for the correction of the area registered with the defendant pursuant to Article 38 of the Cadastral Act, so there is room for doubt as to whether the plaintiff can file an application for the correction of the area registered with the defendant. However, in a case where the administrative agency refuses the application for the correction of the plaintiff, the plaintiff may not file an administrative lawsuit for the following reasons. In other words, the act of entering certain matters in the forestry book is merely for the convenience of the execution of administrative affairs and for the sake of the certification of facts, and such act does not result in any change in the substantive legal relationship of the forest concerned, and thus, it cannot be deemed an administrative

However, even if the Plaintiff received a judgment of transfer of ownership, etc. through civil procedure, it may not be registered as long as the forestry register is not corrected, and thus, there may be room to deem that there is no benefit in the lawsuit. However, the forest of this case can be identified by the forestry map, and as long as the number is set and specific, there is a benefit in seeking the procedure for transfer of ownership based on the prescriptive acquisition against the Defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da30199, Nov. 28, 1997).

C. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts that the part of the forest of this case, "the annexed drawing" and "b", "the river of this case, flows through water, and the river is naturally owned by the defendant in accordance with the River Act. However, even if the above part, "the river of this case," and "f," unlike the defendant's assertion, even if the river of non-furcing water flows through water, there is no evidence to recognize that each of the above parts is a river prescribed in Article 2 (1) of the River Act or a river prescribed in Article 10 of the River Act, and therefore, each of the above parts is not naturally owned pursuant to Article 3 of the River

3. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership on June 26, 1995 with respect to the forest of this case to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified.

Judges Kim Yong-ho (Presiding Judge) Name of Gangwon-won