A. Whether the previous rights in conflict with the Decree on Land Survey (Ordinance No. 2 of August 13, 1912) or the Decree on Land and Forest Survey (Ordinance No. 5 of May 1, 1918) cease to exist (affirmative)

(b) Where a double registration of the same land was made, but the ownership of the title holder of the prior registration is denied, whether to cancel the subsequent registration (negative)

(a) A person under the Decree on Land Survey (Ordinance No. 2 of August 13, 1912) or the Decree on Land and Forest Survey (Ordinance No. 5 of May 1, 1918) acquires the ownership of an assessment land on a conclusive basis, and thus, the previous rights in conflict with this Decree cease to exist.

B. In a case where a double registration is made on the same land, the legal principle deeming the post-registration as null and void is based on the premise that the pre-registration is effective, so long as the ownership of the pre-registration titleholder is denied, it cannot be cancelled on the ground that the post-registration is made subsequent to the same land

A. Article 187 of the Civil Act, Article 2 of the Land Survey Decree (Ordinance No. 2 of August 13, 1912) and Article 1(b) of the Shipbuilding Forest Decree (Ordinance No. 5 of May 1, 1918). Article 186 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Da10858 decided Jan. 25, 1991 (Gong1991, 847) decided Jun. 23, 1992 (Gong1992, 2251) (Gong1992, 251), Supreme Court en banc Decision 87Da2961, 87Da453 decided Nov. 27, 1990 (Gong1991, 178), 91Da25116 decided Oct. 8, 191 (Gong191, 2693), Supreme Court Decision 92Da16522 decided Oct. 27, 1992 (Gong192, 363)

[Judgment of the court below]

Masan City, Attorneys Seo-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Busan High Court Decision 90Na13949 delivered on July 5, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on July 22, 1915, the registration of preservation of ownership has been made in the name of the deceased non-party, who is the Plaintiff's fleet, on the following grounds: on the other hand, on the land of this case, Masan-si, which is the land prior to the subdivision of 3 lots, Masan-si, and 6 non-party 1, which was enforced as of February 1, 1919 (Ordinance No. 51, May 1, 1918), the court below found that the defendant (Masan-si) had the right to the above land of this case (three parcels), which was divided into the above land of this case (three parcels), and the registration of the ownership of the land of this case was made in accordance with the Ordinance No. 1,5,000, and the registration of the forest of this case was made in accordance with the Ordinance No. 1,5,000,000 after the fact that the above land of this case was divided into the above No. 1,51, without its identity.

Since a person under the Land Survey Decree or the Forest Land Survey Decree acquires the land of the assessment land in a final and conclusive manner, the conflicting previous rights cease to exist. According to the Plaintiff’s land survey Decree (Ordinance No. 2, 1912, Aug. 13, 1912), land category shall be determined depending on its type, the ground shall be surveyed and the number shall be set for each region (Article 2), the ground surveying shall be conducted by the landowner’s report and marking (Articles 4, 5, 6, etc.), and the ground surveying shall be based on the survey. Thus, if the land number is not indicated in the above Gyeongsan mountain land, the ground survey under the Land Survey Ordinance and the assessment procedure under the same Decree cannot be said to have been conducted in the future, and even if the land category is indicated in the register as a forest and field, it shall not be deemed to have been conducted as a whole after the survey (Article 6).

The judgment of the court below is correct in determining that the above-mentioned Pyeongtaeksan Forest is not a situation against the above non-party under the Land Survey Order, and if so, if the above forest was assessed against the defendant under the Forest Survey Order, the above non-party's previous ownership shall be lost by the validity of the situation, and if the previous registration in conflict with the validity of the situation remains without cancellation, it shall not be interpreted differently.

In addition, in a case where double registration is made on the same land, the legal principle that regards the post-registration as null and void is only based on the premise that the pre-registration is valid, so as to deny the non-party’s ownership on the aforementioned land in this case, so long as the ownership of the above non-party is denied, it cannot be cancelled on the ground that the registration was made after

Although the fact-finding or judgment of the court below, which held that the identity cannot be recognized between the forest of this case and the forest of this case assessed by the defendant, there is no complaint for the conclusion that the plaintiff's ownership as to the forest of this case was denied.

The theory of the lawsuit is based on the premise that the above non-party, who is the plaintiff's fleet, was legally informed of the forest land of this case falling under the Hosungsan by the Land Investigation Ordinance, and is therefore without merit.

In addition, the judgment of the court below does not conflict with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the theory of lawsuit. All arguments are without merit.

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.