Before restoring after destruction, the ( Address 1 omitted) forest land of 3 parts and 8 parts of the forest land are changed to a new lot number ( Address 2 omitted) and ( Address 3 omitted) but the above ( Address 3 omitted) land is merely 1, and the validity of the registration of restoration of the forest land of which the lot number is indicated as ( Address 2 omitted).

In registering the restoration, the indication of land should be consistent with the indication at the time of the destruction by the party, but even in the case of a somewhat different vehicles, it shall be valid as a registration for the restoration, unless there is any shortage between the two. Therefore, it shall be valid even in the case of the registration for the restoration, which is the registration of the restoration, whose lot number is a new lot number ( Address 2 omitted) and ( Address 3 omitted) in the case of changing the lot number of the land at the 3th parallel on the 8th parallel of forest land after the destruction, but if the above ( Address 3 omitted), it is still valid in the case of the registration for the restoration, the lot number is

Attorney Hong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant 1 and six others

Seoul High Court Decision 75Na414 delivered on February 13, 1976

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The indication of land is registered in the cadastral record, while the content of the right relationship is registered in the registry, and the relation of the indication of the land is announced publicly. In the case where the registry is destroyed or lost, the registration of its restoration is merely to cope with the substantive relation at the time of the destruction or loss disclosed by the registration before the destruction or damage and to restore it again. Therefore, in registering restoration, the indication of land should be identical to the indication at the time of the destruction or loss of the party, but even in the case of a somewhat different vehicle, if there is a lot of difference between the two, it shall be valid as the registration of restoration, unless both are the same as the indication of the land, and the same applies to the case where the lot number of land is changed before

2. With respect to the registration of recovery of this case, Nonparty 1 first puts the indication of the land on July 12, 1956 on the 3-eight square meters of forest land, and Nonparty 2 also puts the form of registration of preservation of ownership as 3 less than 8 forest land ( Address 1 omitted). Even if the number of this case’s forest land is ( Address 1 omitted) before the restoration registration, the above ( Address 2 omitted) and ( Address 3 omitted) forest land was restored to the 1 forest land register without any legal ground, and the court below determined that the above registration of this case’s forest land was not the same as the above 3-party 1 forest land register without any legal ground to find any defects in the 1-party 2 forest land register or the above ( Address 3 omitted) forest land register without any legal ground to the effect that the above registration of this case’s forest land was not identical to the above 3-party 1 forest land register, and thus, the court below did not have any legal ground to deem it invalid as the above.

3. Therefore, the appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with the provisions of Articles 400, 395, and 384(1) of the Civil Procedure Act on the grounds that there are no grounds for appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench regarding the burden of litigation costs.

Justices Hong Man-hee (Presiding Justice)