[1] In a case where the land area is entered differently from the actual one in the title section of the land register, whether the registration is valid as a registration indicating the relevant land (affirmative)

[2] Where an auction was conducted by indicating the parcel number and land registration as listed in the title section of the registry, but the actual area is larger than that of the registry, the ownership of the area exceeding that of the land on the registry shall be vested

[1] The spatial scope of one parcel of land, which is the object of a real right, is not the area registered in the title register of the register of the land where the boundary of the cadastral map or forestry map is located, or in the land ledger or the land ledger. Thus, even if the area of the land is registered differently from the actual one, such registration shall be valid as the registration indicating the relevant land.

[2] Although an auction was conducted by indicating the parcel number and the land register as recorded in the title section of the registry, even if the actual area measured according to the forestry map or the boundary of the cadastral map of the relevant land is larger than that of the title section of the registry, insofar as the execution court did not render a separate judgment by accepting objection to the execution procedure by either ex officio or by the interested party, the area exceeding the point on the registry is part of the land which is the object of the auction, and is attributed to the purchaser along with the area on the registry according to the decision of permission for sale and the payment of the proceeds therefrom, and it cannot be deemed that the auction becomes null and void due to lack of identity between the land subject to sale and the registered land, or that the area indicated on the registry of

[1] Article 186 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 186 and 212 of the Civil Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2924 delivered on April 27, 198 (Gong1988, 899) Supreme Court Decision 91Da3185 delivered on March 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 1251)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Gyeong & Yang, Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other

Jeonju District Court Decision 2002Na635 delivered on November 6, 2003

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

To specify the spatial range of one parcel of land which is the object of real rights, the boundary of the cadastral map or forestry map is not the area registered in the title book of the registry, the forestry book, and the land ledger, so even if the area of the land is registered differently from the actual one, such registration shall be valid as the registration indicating the relevant land.

Therefore, even if an auction was conducted by indicating the parcel number and the land register as recorded in the title section of the registry, but the actual area measured according to the forestry map or the boundary of the cadastral map of the relevant land is larger than that of the title section of the registry, insofar as the execution court did not render a separate judgment by accepting an objection to the execution procedure by either ex officio or by the interested parties, the area exceeding the land on the registry is part of the land which is the object of the auction, and is reverted to the purchaser with the area on the registry according to the decision of permission for sale and payment of the proceeds therefrom (Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2924 delivered on April 27, 198), and as such, the auction becomes null and void due to the lack of identity between the land on the registry and the land registered, or it cannot be deemed that the share auction was conducted as equal to the ratio of the area

According to the above legal principles, even if the forest land map of this case was prepared properly and the boundary is correct, and the actual area of the forest of this case surveyed accordingly exceeds the area registered in the forest land register and the land register, as recorded in the forest land register and the land register, Defendant 1 paid the price in full after being sentenced to the decision of granting a successful bid permission in accordance with the auction procedure under the former Civil Procedure Act, as long as Defendant 1 paid the price in full at the auction procedure of the forest of this case, since the entire forest of this case was transferred effective to Defendant 1, among the reasons stated in the judgment below rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law such as misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the specification of land which is the object of a real right, or omission of judgment, as alleged by the Plaintiff as

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)