A. Whether a subdivision registration without undergoing a subdivision procedure under the intellectual law is valid (negative)

(b) If a subdivision has been registered as two parcels on the registry, but it has not been subdivided into the forestry register and forestry map, whether the transfer of ownership for the specific portions within the original forest area is registered (affirmative);

C. Whether extinctive prescription of the right to claim ownership transfer where a forest purchaser’s heir occupies and manages forest land (negative)

A. The number of land shall be determined on the basis of the essential part of the land in the cadastral record under the Cadastral Act, and in order to register the land of one parcel by dividing it into several lots of land, it shall first be registered on each lot in the cadastral record as prescribed by the Cadastral Act, and as long as it does not go through the procedures for partition under the Cadastral Act, it shall not be the object of registration, and even if the registration of subdivision was executed only on the cadastral register, it shall not bring about the effect of subdivision. Accordingly, such subdivision registration shall be null and void as it goes against the principle of the 1st registry of real estate.

(b) Even if the forest land within one parcel has been registered as a parcel with two parcels, as long as the subdivision is not divided in the forestry register and the forestry map which serves as the premise, the registration of ownership transfer for that part shall not become impossible, unless the division becomes effective and as long as the location and area of the forest land which is the object of litigation can be specified within the original forest and field.

C. If the heir (or the former heir) of the purchaser of the forest has occupied and managed the forest, the buyer of the real estate takes over the object and the right to claim ownership transfer registration is not subject to extinctive prescription.

(b)Article 186(a)(b) of the Civil Code, Article 3, Article 17, Article 19 of the Cadastral Act, Article 15 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 162 of the Civil Code;

C.Supreme Court en banc Decision 76Da148 Decided November 6, 1976 (Gong1976, 9492)

Kim Jae-Gyeong et al.

Attorney Lee Jin-hun et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Busan District Court Decision 90Na3147 delivered on June 22, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) The Registration of Real Estate Act adopts the principle of one real estate registration form and prescribes that one registration form shall be kept for one parcel (Article 15). Under the Registration of Real Estate Act and the Cadastral Act, all land can only be the object of a registration by setting the lot number, land category, boundary or coordinates and size for each parcel as prescribed by the Cadastral Act (Article 3 of the Cadastral Act), and the lot number, land category, boundary or coordinates and size of the land to be registered in the cadastral record shall be determined by the competent authority (Article 4 through 6 of the Cadastral Act), and if it is intended to subdivide a parcel of land, a new cadastral surveying shall be conducted by the competent authority to determine the lot number, land category, boundary or coordinate area of each parcel (Articles 17 and 19 of the Cadastral Act). In light of these provisions, in order that one parcel of land may be registered as a parcel of land in the cadastral record by dividing it into a standard lot of land under the Cadastral Act, and thus, the registration may be invalidated by dividing it into one parcel of land, as prescribed by the Cadastral Act.

According to the decision of the court below, since the above 324 forest land registered as 324 forest land in Busan-dong, Busan-dong, 195 as 71 forest land registered as 324 forest land, the above 324 forest land registered as 6 forest land and 324-2 forest land registered as 324 forest land in Busan-dong, 195, and the above 324-2 forest land registered as 324 forest land is completed on June 26, 1956, the ownership transfer registration of the above 324-1 forest land was completed on 324 forest land registered as 36 forest land registered as 41 forest land without 324 forest land in Busan-dong, 1956, and the above 13 forest land registered as 324 forest land without 24 forest land in Busan-dong, 324 forest land registered as 31 forest land and 41 forest land registered as 324 forest land without 1 forest land in Busan-do.

In this regard, even if a subdivision registration is made on the above 324-1 forest land 8,529 square meters in the above 324-1 forest land in the above 324-1 forest land in the above 324-3 forest land in the above 324-1 forest land and the above 324-3 forest land in the above 324-3 forest in the above 324-1 forest land in the above 324-1 forest land in the above 8,529 square meters in the above 324-1 forest land in the above 324-1 forest land in the above 8,529 square meters in the above 324-1 forest land in the above 324-1 forest land in the above 324-3 forest land in the above 324-37 forest land in the above 324-3 forest land in the above 7th 7th m, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that it is impossible to perform the duty of ownership transfer registration due to the defendant.

However, if the registration of subdivision is null and void as above, it is erroneous for the court below to have held that the above 324-1 forest of the above 324-3 forest of the above 324-3 forest of the above 324-3 forest and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Park Dong-dong is also invalid, unless there are special circumstances, but the above 8,529-1 forest of the above 324-1 forest of the above 324-1 forest of the above 324-1 forest of the above 324-3 forest of the above 324-3

(2) The court below rejected the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription by determining that the right to claim for ownership transfer registration does not fall under the extinctive prescription in the case where the real estate purchaser takes over the object as the heir (or the former heir) of the non-party deceased Kim Young-soo who purchased the forest part of the forest land which is the object of the lawsuit in this case. In light of the records, the court below's fact-finding and decision are justified and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit, or there is no violation of the rules of evidence.

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

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)