Whether a name is presumed to be owned by a person if the cadastral source map prepared by the former Decree on Land Survey is written (negative)

Article 187 of the Civil Act; Articles 9, 15, and 17 of the former Land Investigation Decree (repealed by Ordinance No. 2, Aug. 13, 1912); Enforcement Rule of the former Land Investigation Decree (repealed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs, Aug. 13, 1912)

Supreme Court Decision 99Da4005 Delivered on April 7, 2000 (Gong2000Sang, 1141) Supreme Court Decision 2001Da2222 Delivered on June 29, 2001

Plaintiff (Law Firm Jung-tae, Attorneys Ansan-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Na10395 Decided September 3, 2008

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

If it is recognized that a person’s name is indicated in the cadastral support map, it becomes a flexible material that makes the person take into account as the owner of the land. However, the owner’s entry in the cadastral support map in the former detailed detailed detailed implementation rule (No. 18 of October 5, 1913) is merely an internal material for preparing on the spot survey prepared at the preceding stage of the land research department, which is a public book for the situation, rather than an internal material for keeping the contents of the report, and it is merely a temporary entry without any device for preventing any change, even if it is stated in accordance with the provisions of the Land Survey Bureau, it cannot be presumed that the person stated immediately and as the owner of the land was affected by the situation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da4005, Apr. 7, 200; 202Da21229, Jun. 21, 201).

The lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s land cadastre No. 1 and No. 1 and No. 2 were 6 of this case’s land cadastre No. 1 and No. 3 of this case’s land cadastre No. 1 and No. 3 of this case’s land cadastre No. 1 and no. 139 of this case’s land cadastre No. 1 and no. 2 of this case’s land cadastre No. 3 of this case’s land cadastre No. 1 and no. 9 of this case’s land cadastre No. 2 of this case’s land cadastre No. 3 of this case’s land cadastre No. 1 and no. 9 of this case’s land cadastre No. 3 of this case’s land cadastre No. 6 of this case’s land cadastre No. 1 and no. 9 of this case’s land cadastre No. 1 and no. 3 of this case’s land cadastre No. 9-1 and no. 9 of this case’s land cadastre No. 2 of this case’s land cadastre No. 1 and no. 3 of this case’

Examining the facts acknowledged by the court below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the above judgment of the court below can be accepted as just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the probative value of intellectual property as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and 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 Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)