Scope of land ownership registered in the cadastral record

If a certain land is registered as a parcel of land by means of a cadastral record, the location, lot number, land category, cadastral area, and boundary of the land shall be specified by this registration unless there are other special circumstances. Therefore, the scope of ownership of the land shall be determined by the boundary on the cadastral record.

Article 211 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Da611 Delivered on June 8, 1982

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1

Suwon District Court Decision 86Na620 delivered on February 12, 1988

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court rejected Nonparty 1’s claim on the above 7th square meters for sale of the above 7th square meters to Nonparty 1’s land at 7th square meters and (2) 75 square meters away from the above 1973 square meters, which was actually owned by Nonparty 1, and the above 110 square meters away from the above 7th square meters away from the above 1977 square meters, and then sold the above 9th square meters away from the above 1977 square meters away from the above 1977 square meters to the Defendant’s land boundary (2nd 1st 6th 7th malth malth 6th malth malth malth malth malth malth malth malth malth malth malth malth 6) and the above 197th malth malth malth 17th m m.

2. If a certain land is registered with one parcel of land in the cadastral record, the location, lot number, land category, land category, and boundary of the land shall be specified by this registration unless there are other special circumstances. Thus, the scope of ownership of the land shall be determined by the boundary on the cadastral record (see Supreme Court Decision 81Da611 delivered on June 8, 1982).

However, according to the testimony of the non-party 7 of the lower court and the result of the on-site inspection of the lower court, it can be known that the building and the building owned by the plaintiff owned by the defendant of this case did not have a boundary mark, such as a fence indicating the boundary of the land until now, and did not have a boundary mark (see preparatory documents as of April 3, 1987). Thus, the evidence employed by the lower court alone, based on the premise that the boundary of each of the above lands was specified, may not be deemed to have been entirely purchased in accordance with the actual boundary phenomenon.

Nevertheless, the court below's decision that the boundary of the plaintiff and the defendant-owned land should be determined by the boundary of the actual land because it was sold before the actual boundary phenomenon is not against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles as to the scope of land ownership, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division, which is the court below, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)