1. On February 15, 2016, the defendant filed with the plaintiffs with respect to the area of 4,582 square meters prior to E in Yangyang-si.

Facts of recognition

F, G, H, and I completed the registration of destruction and recovery (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of recovery of this case”) on April 28, 1953 with respect to the Namyang-si 800 PJ (hereinafter referred to as the “J”) which was named as the District Court of Suyang-si’s District Court No. 822 on April 28, 1953, stating that the cause for registration is unknown.

The register, land cadastre, etc. on the 6,744 square meters (2,040 square meters, hereinafter “instant 1”) before J in Nam-si, Namyang-si

6. 25. The land cadastre was destroyed at the time of war and restored.

On June 9, 2003, the land No. 1 was divided into 2,162 square meters before J and 4,582 square meters before E (hereinafter “instant land”). The land No. 2 in the instant case was completed registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendant on February 15, 2016 under the name of the Namyang-ju District Court No. 12881.

The co-owners of the instant restitution registration died from around 1999 to around 2002, and the Plaintiffs are co-owners’ successors.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including each number in the case of additional numbers), and even if the grounds for registration for the restoration of destruction and loss are clearly indicated in the registration for the whole purport of the pleadings, it is acknowledged that the presumption of presumption is recognized (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 80Da3286, Nov. 24, 1981). In order to specify the spatial scope of one parcel of land which is the object of a real right, since the boundary of the cadastral map or forestry map is not the area registered in the title book of the registry, the forest land register, and the land area is recorded differently from the actual one.

However, such registration shall be valid as a registration indicating the pertinent land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2016Da1793, Jun. 28, 2016; 2004Da1691, Dec. 23, 2005). In the meantime, where a duplicate registration has been made with regard to the same real estate differently from the registered titleholder, unless the registration first made becomes invalid.