Mangyeong-si et al. (Attorneys Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Jeonju-si (Attorney Jeon Jae-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

March 24, 2006

Jeonju District Court Decision 200Kadan9675 Delivered on February 12, 2004

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked, and the defendant paid to the plaintiffs 14,908,483 won and 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the written application for modification of the lawsuit on March 22, 2006 to the day of complete payment, and from February 11, 2006 to the day of complete payment, the amount equivalent to 1,2,3,4,4,5,6,7, and 1 of the attached drawings among the 96-2 forest and 1,326m2 m2 in Jinjin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City from February 11, 2006 to the day of complete payment. The defendant paid to the plaintiffs the amount equivalent to 760m2,349 m2,349 m2 of the attached drawings by the date of loss of the plaintiffs' ownership or the date of the defendant's road closure (the plaintiff withdraws the part of the claim for payment, and it is so decided as per Disposition 2 of the Disposition).

1. Basic facts

In this part, the reasons why a member should explain are the same as the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited by applying Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs, with the consent of the owners of adjacent land to the forest of this case, shall complete the procedure for correcting the size of the forest of this case and the indication of the registry title in accordance with the indication of the forestry map. The spatial scope of the forest of this case was consistent with the indication or boundary of the current forestry map. Since the defendant opened and manages and occupies the road within the boundary of the forest of this case owned by the plaintiffs, the defendant is obliged to pay the amount equivalent to the rent of the road of this case as unjust enrichment to the plaintiffs.

B. Determination

(1) To specify the spatial range of one parcel of land, which is the object of a real right, the boundary of the cadastral map or forestry map, is not an area registered in the title register of the register of land where the boundary of the cadastral map or forestry map is located, or an area registered in the land cadastre or forest register. However, where the real estate of the real estate which is the object of ownership in the cadastral record is mistakenly indicated due to

(2) As seen earlier, although the forest of this case was divided into thirty square meters and registered with 9 square meters in the forest of this case in the above 96 forest of this case, the area in the forest of this case was 574 square meters in the forest of this case due to a mistake in the land division process, and the area in the current forest of this case was calculated with 1,326 square meters in the current forest of this case in the process of registration conversion and boundary confirmation with neighboring land under the circumstance where the error was not corrected again, the above forest of this case prepared by mistake is merely an object to be corrected, and thus it cannot be deemed that the spatial range of the forest of this case was expressed. According to the above adopted evidence, the non-party members, the owner of the land of this case, were neglected to correct the area of the forest of this case to 1133-1, 133-17 square meters in the forest of this case and 99 square meters in the forest of this case, and there was no sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs' spatial area of this case was within 99 square meters in the above forest of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reason.

Judges Yuk-song (Presiding Judge)