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

B. The difference between the boundary indication in the cadastral map and the de facto boundary indication is made when the parties traded the land as the de facto boundary, and whether the seller's obligation to register the ownership transfer to a third party is deemed impossible where the part becomes a seller's obligation to register the ownership transfer to the third party

A. In a transaction of land, it is common for a transaction of land, the scope of ownership of which is determined by the parcel number, land category, land register, and boundary recorded in the cadastral record. Thus, even if a boundary indication in the cadastral record is indicated differently from the de facto boundary due to a mistake of partition survey, etc., it shall be deemed that the transaction of land, the scope of ownership of which is determined by the parcel number, land category, land register, and boundary recorded in the cadastral record regardless of de facto boundary, barring special circumstances, such as where the party concerned is not an intention to trade the land whose scope

B. In a case where the party concerned trades the land with the intention to trade the land as a de facto boundary, the purchaser shall obtain the right to claim the transfer registration of the ownership of the land within the scope of purchase against the seller, but the difference between the boundary indication in the cadastral map due to the error of partition survey, etc. and the de facto boundary indication due to the difference in the boundary indication, and in a case where the ownership transfer registration is made according to the cadastral record for the third party who has acquired the adjacent land, the third party shall acquire the ownership of the land in the dispute area in accordance with the legal principles established by the boundary on the cadastral record. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the seller's obligation to transfer the ownership

A. Article 563 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Meu941 delivered on May 14, 1985 (Gong1985,840) (Gong1985,840) 86Meu2261 delivered on February 24, 1987 (Gong1987,526) (Gong1991,050)

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-Counterclaim defendant)

Defendant Lessee (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and three Defendant Lessee (Counterclaim Plaintiff) Law Firm Samduk, Attorneys Jung-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 90Na13953, 90Na13960 decided July 26, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, Plaintiff hereinafter)’s attorney’s grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a transaction of land, it is common for a transaction of land, the scope of ownership of which is determined by the parcel number, land category, land register, and boundary recorded in the cadastral record. Thus, even if a boundary indication in the cadastral record is indicated differently from the de facto boundary due to a mistake of partition survey, etc., barring special circumstances such as where the party to the transaction does not intend to trade the land, the scope of ownership of which is determined by the cadastral record, but it is acknowledged that the land was traded with an intention to trade the land as de facto boundary, the parcel number, land category, land register, and boundary indicated in the cadastral record regardless of the de facto boundary (see Supreme Court Decision 69Da89,890, Oct. 28

However, in the event that the parties sell and purchase the land as the actual boundary, the purchaser acquires the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership of the land within the scope of purchase against the seller, but the difference between the boundary indication in the cadastral map and the de facto boundary indication due to the error of partition survey, etc., and the difference between the boundary indication in the cadastral map and the de facto boundary indication, and in the case of the transfer registration of ownership by the boundary on the cadastral record for the third party who acquired the neighboring land, the third party acquires the ownership of the land in the dispute portion in accordance with the legal principles established by the boundary on the cadastral record, barring any special circumstance, the seller's obligation to transfer ownership

2. 원심판결 이유에 의하면 원심은 그 거시증거에 의하여 원심판결 첨부목록 기재 제1, 2, 4토지와 경남 양산군 (주소 1 생략) 대 684㎡ 및 분할 전의 (주소 2 생략) 전 205평은 원래 모두 망 소외 1의 소유였던 사실, 그런데 위 망 소외 1이 1946.12.19.경 원고의 망부인 소외 2에게 위 (주소 1 생략) 토지를 매도하고, 위 망 소외 1이 1960.8.11.경 사망한 후 소외 3 등 그의 상속인들이 1964.3.24.경 이 사건 제1, 2, 4토지부분 및 위 분할 전 (주소 2 생략) 토지 중 일부를 소외 4에게 매도하였으며, 위 소외 4는 1969.3.17.경 위 (주소 2 생략) 토지를 이 사건 제3 토지와 (주소 3 생략) 전 85평으로 분할한 후 그 중 위 (주소 3 생략) 토지에 관하여 원고 앞으로 소유권이전등기를 경료하여 주는 한편 1971.12.16. 소외 5에게 이 사건 제1 내지 4토지부분을 매도하고, 위 소외 5는 1977.6.30. 이 사건 제1토지부분을 피고(반소원고, 이하 피고라 한다) 1에게, 1976.12.31. 이 사건 제2토지부분을 소외 6에게, 위 소외 6은 1977.6.30. 이를 피고 2에게, 또 위 소외 5는 1977.6.30. 이 사건 제3 토지부분을 피고 3에게, 1976.12.31. 이 사건 제4토지부분을 소외 7에게, 위 소외 7은 1977.6.30. 이를 피고 4에게 각 순차 매도하고 이 사건 각 토지 전체에 관하여 피고들 명의의 위 소유권 이전등기에 이르기까지 위 매매경위에 따른 각 매수인들 명의의 소유권이전등기가 순차 경료된 사실을 인정한 다음, 위 망 소외 1이 원고 주장과 같이 탱자나무 울타리를 조성한 다음 위 망 소외 2에게 위 (주소 1 생략) 토지와 함께 위 탱자나무 울타리를 경계로 하여 그 남쪽의 원고가 점유 중인 이 사건 계쟁 토지부분(위 도면표시 ㉮ ㉯ ㉰ ㉱ ㉲ ㉴ ㉵ ㉷ ㉸ ㉹ 부분)까지 매도한 사실이 인정되기는 하나, 위 분할 전의 (주소 2 생략) 토지의 분할에 있어 지적도가 잘못 작성되었다거나 위 소외 4로부터 피고들에 이르기까지의 이 사건 각 토지부분의 각 매매 당사자들이 지적공부상 확정되는 이 사건 각 토지 전체를 매매할 의사가 아니고 그 사실상의 경계대로 매매할 의사로서 이 사건 각 토지 중 계쟁 토지부분을 제외한 각 나머지 부분 토지만을 순차 매수하였다는 취지의 원고 주장에 관하여는 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없고, 오히려 원심 거시증거에 의하면 위 소외 4 이래 피고들에 이르기까지의 위 각 매수인들은 이 사건 각 토지의 전소유자들로부터 지적공부상의 1필의 토지인 이 사건 각 토지를 그 전체로 매수하고 이에 기하여 앞서 본 바와 같이 각 소유권이전등기를 경료한 사실을 인정할 수 있을 뿐이므로, 앞서 본 바와 같이 위 망 소외 2가 위 망 소외 1로부터 이 사건계쟁토지부분을 매수한 바 있다고 한들 이는 위 망 소외 2 또는 그 상속인들과 위 망 소외 1 또는 그 상속인들 사이의 내부적 문제에 불과한 것으로서 이 점만으로써는 피고들의 그 부분에 관한 소유권취득에 어떤 영향도 미칠 수는 없는 것이어서 원고의 이 사건 계쟁토지부분에 관한 권리주장은 이유 없고, 달리 원고에게 이 사건 계쟁토지부분을 점유할 정당한 권원이 있다고 볼 만한 아무런 자료도 없는 이 사건에 있어서 원고는 그 각 소유자들인 피고들에게 그가 점유 중인 이 사건 각 계쟁토지부분을 인도할 의무가 있다고 판단하였다.

If the deceased non-party 1 sells to the deceased non-party 2 the part of the land in dispute in this case with the boundary of the tank wood fence, which is a de facto boundary, as in the case of the Irrrrrrish, it is obvious that the cadastral division of the land before the above division was erroneous, and at least in the case between the above non-party 1 and his heir and the above non-party 2 and the non-party 4, it is deemed that the land in each dispute in this case was sold by the de facto boundary, and therefore, it is not appropriate for the judgment below as to this part.

However, in light of the records, we affirm the decision of the court below that there is no evidence to acknowledge that each transaction from the above non-party 4 to the defendants with an intention to trade within the boundary of boundaries is a sale with intent to trade, and there is no error of law in violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore, the ownership of each part of the land in this case belongs to the defendants and the obligation of the deceased non-party 1 or his heir to transfer ownership to the plaintiff was impossible.

In the end, the plaintiff's main claim is rejected, and the judgment of the court below which accepted the defendants' counterclaim is just, and there is no error of law as to the theory of lawsuit.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)