(a) The case of recognizing prescriptive acquisition for the land owned by another person located within the boundary of the wall;

B. Whether the purchase proposal after the completion of the prescriptive acquisition can be deemed as waiver of the prescriptive benefit (negative)

(c) Scope of ownership of land registered in the cadastral record;

(d) Specifying the subject matter to be traded, where the boundary in the cadastral map differs from the actual boundary; and

(a) The case of recognizing prescriptive acquisition for the land owned by another person located within the boundary of the wall;

B. Although the request was made to sell the proceeds after the completion of the prescriptive acquisition, it cannot be deemed that the waiver of the prescriptive benefit solely on the fact that the purchase negotiation for the share of the opinion lane on the purchase price has been displayed.

(c) If a parcel of land is registered with one parcel in the cadastral record under the Cadastral Act, the location, lot number, land category, land category, 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.

D. The sale and purchase of land, regardless of the actual boundary, shall be deemed to be subject to the sale and purchase of the land determined by the boundary on the cadastral record and by the cadastral record, regardless of the actual boundary. However, in the preparation of the cadastral map, the boundary on the land shall be based on the actual boundary, only if there are special circumstances, such as the case where the parties, even if the land was sold before it was sold, have an intention to trade the land with the actual boundary and trade with the intention to trade the land on the boundary, and the boundary on the land should be based on the actual boundary.

(a) Article 245(b) of the Civil Act; Article 184(c) of the same Act; Article 212(d) of the same Act;

B. D. Supreme Court Decision 90Da12984 Decided February 22, 1991 (Gong1986, 3030). (2) Supreme Court Decision 65Da1551 Decided December 21, 1965 (Gong1980, 13108), Supreme Court Decision 88Da5843,5850 Decided April 11, 1989 (Gong1989, 7455) (Gong1986, Oct. 14, 1986) (Gong1986, 3030). (3) Supreme Court Decision 88Da8194 Decided 24, 1989 (Gong1989, 299, 1989), Supreme Court Decision 208Da1681948, Dec. 26, 198 (Gong1968, Dec. 26, 199)

Attorney Kim Jae-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Park Jong-won et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Na-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na16421 delivered on October 12, 1990

All appeals by plaintiffs Kim Jae-in and the defendant are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each party.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff Kim Jae-name attorney are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the defendant purchased and occupied the building site and ground building of 357-5, Jung-gu, Seoul on March 20, 1964 from the well-known-dong 357-9, Jung-gu, Seoul, and that the defendant occupied the part of 82 square meters in the attached drawing at the time of original adjudication, which was known as part of the above 357-5 of the land of 357-9, the ownership of the plaintiff Kim Jae-gu, which was located within the wall boundary, with the knowledge of the above 357-9, at the time of original adjudication, and rejected the defendant's claim that the defendant purchased the land of 1984, which was owned by the plaintiff, with the intention to own the above part of the land owned by the plaintiff, in good faith, peace, and public performance. Thus, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the defendant had no evidence to acknowledge that the above part of 82 square meters was the ownership of the plaintiff Kim Jae-dong, and that the plaintiff's claim that the purchase price did not decrease.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as theory of lawsuit, interruption of prescription, waiver of prescription interest, and conversion to other possession. There is no illegality in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the fact-finding and judgment of the court below

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the land owned by the defendant was divided into the current land around 1937 as well as the land sites of the same 357-6, 7, and 357-9 of the same 357-5 building site and the land owned by the plaintiff Park Jong-won, Jung-gu, Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, and 357-9 of the same 357-6, 357-6, and the land owned by the plaintiff Kim Jae-gu, Kim Jae-won-won, and since around 1937, the building was constructed on each site. Since around 1941, the building owned by the defendant was built on each site, such as the time of the original judgment, and thereafter, the above site and the building were transferred to the plaintiff et al. and the defendant acquired each ownership. However, the court below did not know that there was a violation of the rules of evidence in the facts-finding theory or the record, but did not know that there was a violation of the boundaries.

(2) According to the various regulations of the Cadastral Act (Articles 3 through 7 and 15 through 20 of the Cadastral Act), where a parcel of land is registered as a parcel of land in the cadastral record under the Cadastral Act, the location, lot number, land category, land register, and boundary of the land are specified as this registration unless there are other special circumstances, and the scope of ownership is determined by the boundary of the public register regardless of the actual boundary.

Therefore, the sale and purchase of land, regardless of the actual boundary, shall be deemed to be the subject of the sale and purchase of the land determined by the boundary on the cadastral record and the cadastral record regardless of the actual boundary. However, in the preparation of the cadastral map, due to technical errors such as the error of selecting points, the boundary on the land in the cadastral map was prepared differently from the true boundary line, or after installing a fence on the land in the boundary of each building and selling a subdivision after de facto dividing it into the site of each building, the boundary and the cadastral record are inconsistent with the actual boundary. The boundary of the land should be based on the actual boundary, provided that there are special circumstances such as the case where the land was sold before it was sold with an intention to trade the land along the actual boundary, even if the land was sold before it was sold before it was sold (see Supreme Court Decision 75Da1080, Nov. 11, 1975; Supreme Court Decision 81Da1680, Apr. 18, 198; 2018Da19684, Apr. 18, 19882; 196

Therefore, as recognized in paragraph (1) above, it cannot be deemed that the parties to the sale and purchase specified the subject matter of sale according to the actual boundary regardless of the boundary in the public register of each land of this case, on the ground that the Plaintiff and the Defendant purchased each land of this case and sold the land of this case with the knowledge of the actual boundary as at the time of knowing that the actual boundary in each land of this case is different from the boundary in the public register.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport does not err in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, and the decision of the Supreme Court pointing this out is the judgment cited above and the case differs from this case, so it cannot be deemed as a

(3) According to the records, the registration of ownership transfer for the reasons of each gift of each of the instant land in the name of the Plaintiff Park Jong-won and Park Jong-won, who is his own child, was pretended to have been made without actual donation, and even if it is not so, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant’s assertion was made for the purpose of evading the obligation to transfer ownership to the Defendant, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as theory of lawsuit, incomplete deliberation, or misapprehension of the legal principles, etc. The arguments are groundless.

Therefore, all appeals by plaintiffs Kim Jae- Jae and the defendant are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Woo-soo (Presiding Justice)