[1] In a case where a name is indicated in the cadastral source map prepared by the former Land Survey Order, whether it is presumed that it was owned by it (negative)

[2] Whether the fact that a certain person's name was entered in the cadastral support map prepared by the former Land Survey Order constitutes a valuable material that makes him/her look into as a land owner's assessment (affirmative)

[3] The case holding that in full view of the facts that the name of the father or the father was written on the cadastral support map of the land in dispute and the facts that said father or father tolds the close relation between the above land and the above land, it can be deemed that the above land owner was assessed as the land owner

[1] If a certain person's name is indicated in a cadastral source map of a land, it shall be deemed that the person is the owner of the land under the former detailed detailed detailed implementation rules (No. 18 of the Directive of the Temporary Land Investigation Bureau of October 5, 1913), and it shall not be deemed that the situation of the landowner is made arbitrarily for administrative convenience without any grounds, but it shall not be made based on the owner's statement itself, but it shall be made by the owner's report and the land owner's report (Article 45 of the same Act) after preparing a land survey book again by preparing a land survey book. Meanwhile, it shall be made only by preparing a new land survey book as a material, while making a detailed survey map in the actual area (Article 45 of the same Act) so that the entry of the original land's line, lot number, land category, etc. on the day of the actual work, but it shall not be deemed that the owner of the land is the owner of the land, and it shall not be deemed that it has been made by the owner's temporary investigation under Article 871 of the land.

[2] From the fact that a certain person's name is stated in the cadastral support map, it cannot be promptly presumed that the person is the owner of the land. However, since the land research division, which is a public book for assessment, is prepared based on the spot investigation register prepared based on the descriptions of the cadastral support map, the fact that a certain person's name is stated in the cadastral support map is a material fact that the person is considered to be the owner of the land.

[3] The case holding that in full view of the facts that the name of the father or the father was entered in the cadastral support map of the land in dispute and other facts that told that the above land is closely related to the above land, it can be recognized that the father or the father was assessed as the owner of the above land

[1] Article 187 of the Civil Act, Articles 9, 15, and 17 of the former Land Survey Decree (repealed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs, August 13, 1912) / [2] Article 187 of the Civil Act, Articles 9, 15, and 17 of the former Land Survey Decree, Article 6 of the former Land Survey Decree (repealed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs, August 13, 1912), and Article 187 of the Civil Act, Articles 9, 17 of the former Land Survey Decree (repealed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs, August 13, 1912), Article 187 of the Civil Act, Articles 9, 15, and 17 of the former Land Survey Decree (repealed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs, repealed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land Planning and Fisheries, Article 186 of the former Land Survey Decree (repealed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Home Affairs, 13.

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da29181 delivered on October 12, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3074) Supreme Court Decision 96Da40486 delivered on December 20, 1996 (Gong197Sang, 366) Supreme Court Decision 97Da8984 delivered on June 27, 1997

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul District Court Decision 98Na63406 delivered on June 17, 1999

The judgment below is reversed. The case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since all official cadastral records, such as the land survey division, etc. on each of the lands listed in the annexed list of the judgment below (hereinafter referred to as "each of the lands of this case") were destroyed due to the incident of June 25, 1980, and as to the lands listed in the 3 through 12 of this case, each of the cadastral records of this case was restored on February 1, 1986, and the owner of each of the above land cadastre was not restored until now. Since the land was recorded on the land of this case as the owner of the non-party 1's land and the cadastral records of this case's cadastral records were recorded on the non-party 1's own land as the result of the cadastral survey of the non-party 2's cadastral records and the cadastral records of the non-party 1's cadastral records were recorded on the non-party 2's own land of this case's own land and the cadastral records of this case's land were recorded on the land of this case, the non-party 1's own land.

2. As to the ground of appeal on the misapprehension of legal principles as to the statement of cadastral support

The Land Investigation Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21 of Aug. 13, 1912) provides that the land survey conducted for the purpose of land survey under the Land Investigation Decree (Ordinance No. 21 of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 1912) provides that the detailed survey of the land in the survey work shall be conducted on a real-site basis for each piece of land, and the land shall be surveyed closely, and the location and shape of each piece of land shall be expressed by drawing (Articles 2 and 7). The detailed survey provides for the preparation of the original, sight and on a spot through the detailed map (Article 46). The detailed survey provides for the detailed survey of the land conducted on August 13, 1912 (Enactment. 18 of the Temporary Land Investigation Authority's Directive No. 1913, Oct. 5, 1913). The detailed survey provides that it is difficult to see that the person's name is the same as the land being indicated in the land's land list and the lot number as it is indicated within 800 days.

However, the situation of the landowner is not based on the owner's statement of the cadastral support map, but rather based on the owner's report of the original and the owner's report (Article 45 of the detailed survey provision). The land survey book is made by preparing the land survey book again from the data of the land survey book. On the other hand, while making a detailed survey in the actual land map, the passage, lot number, land category, etc. of the original map prepared by the land survey book is put on the day of the actual work. However, the land owner is obliged to display it in the original map by keeping it as it is when the land survey is carried out without drinking (Article 71 and Article 85 of the detailed survey provision). If the owner's statement of the cadastral support map is not a direct basis for the situation, but it is merely an internal data for the field survey prepared at the previous stage of the land survey book, which is a public book for the situation, and even if it is merely an internal data for the prevention of the land from being recorded in the temporary survey without any change, it is merely a temporary entry.

Therefore, the court below is just in holding that the fact that the name of the deceased non-party 1 or his father, the deceased non-party 2 was entered in the cadastral support map of each of the lands of this case, is not presumed to have received the assessment of each of the lands of this case, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the presumption of cadastral support. The supplement of each of the supplementary appellate briefs not timely filed after the expiration of the period for submitting the grounds of appeal and the appellate brief cannot be accepted.

3. As to the grounds of appeal on the violation of the rules of evidence

From the fact that a person’s name is indicated in the cadastral support map, it cannot be presumed immediately as the person is the owner of the land. However, as seen above, the land research division, which is a public book for circumstance, is prepared based on the on-site investigation book prepared based on the cadastral support map. Thus, such fact is a flexible material that makes the person to be considered as the owner of the land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da29181, Oct. 12, 1993; 96Da40486, Dec. 20, 1996; 97Da8984, Jun. 27, 1997).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, among each of the lands of this case, the name of the deceased non-party 2, who is the father of the plaintiff, and the deceased non-party 1, who is the father of the plaintiff, was born in the land of this case on June 10, 1920, and the plaintiff was born in the land of this case on June 10, 1920, and the plaintiff was left to the non-party 3, who is the wife of the land of this case, and the land of this case, which had been managed in the course of this case, was transferred to the non-party 3, who was the wife of the land of this case, and the non-party 3 was turned to the non-party 4, etc. from that time until 1,4,4,000, and thereafter the land of this case was recovered again after the June 25 incident, but the entry of this case was controlled within the control line, and it can be seen as being left at present.

However, if the name of the deceased non-party 1 or the deceased non-party 2, who is the father of the plaintiff, is indicated in the cadastral support map of each of the lands of this case as above, the statement of the cadastral support map becomes a valuable material that makes the deceased non-party 1 or the deceased non-party 2 to be considered as being the owner of each of the lands of this case. In light of the probative value of the owner of the cadastral support map, which is the value of the land of this case and the fact of the recognition that the plaintiff is closely related to each of the lands of this case and the plaintiff non-party 2, who is the deceased non-party 1 or the deceased non-party 2, who is the father of the plaintiff, it is sufficient to recognize each of the lands of this case

Nevertheless, the court below did not dismiss the probative value of the owner's entry in the intellectual property map and determined that the remaining evidence alone is insufficient to recognize the facts of the plaintiff's assertion and dismissed the plaintiff's claim, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the probative value of the intellectual property map, or by violating the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)