[1] In a case where the presumption of right to the owner of land cadastre or forest land cadastre is not recognized, whether the State should demand confirmation of ownership (affirmative)

[2] Whether or not there exists a presumption of right in the column of the owner on the old land cadastre restored before the amendment of the Cadastral Act on December 31, 1975 (negative)

[3] In a case where a certain land is registered for the restoration of a parcel of land in the cadastral record, the burden of proving that the cadastral record was mistakenly prepared

[1] In a case where there is a person who has been registered as an owner in a registry or a land cadastre or a forest land cadastre with respect to a certain parcel of land, the person may apply for registration of preservation of ownership when he obtains a final and conclusive judgment confirming that the relevant real estate is owned by the applicant for registration of preservation in a lawsuit against the nominal owner. As such, in principle, there is a benefit in the request for confirmation of ownership against the nominal owner. However, in a case where the capacity of presumption of ownership as to the owner in

[2] Even if the name of the owner is written on the old land cadastre arbitrarily restored for administrative convenience without any legal basis before the enforcement of the Cadastral Act amended by Act No. 2801 of Dec. 31, 1975, the competent authority does not recognize the presumption of right regarding the owner's matters.

[3] Where a certain land is registered as a parcel of land in the cadastral record, the location, lot number, land category, land register, and boundary of the land shall be presumed to have been restored as it is, unless there are special circumstances such as the relevant public official erroneously prepared a cadastral record due to clerical error in the process of imposing sanctions on the restoration of the cadastral record, and the burden of proof of special circumstances, such as the location, lot number, land category, land register, and boundary of the land before the restoration of the cadastral record, and the

[1] Article 186 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 12 of the former Cadastral Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on Land Survey, Waterway Survey and Cadastral Records, Act No. 9774 of Jun. 9, 2009) / [3] Article 12 of the former Cadastral Act (amended by Article 2 of Addenda to the Act on Land Survey, Waterway Survey and Cadastral Records, Act No. 9774 of Jun. 9, 2009), Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da44947 delivered on April 13, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1382) Supreme Court Decision 98Da34485 delivered on September 3, 1999 (Gong199Ha, 2024) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 96Da54263 delivered on February 24, 1998 (Gong198Sang, 843 delivered on May 29, 2008)

Plaintiff (Attorney Yu-won, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Chuncheon et al. (Attorney Lee Jong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2008Na4920 Decided February 12, 2010

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal on the claim for confirmation of ownership

In a case where there is a person who has been registered as an owner in the register or the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre, if there is a person who has been registered as an owner in the register or the forest land cadastre, the person may apply for registration of preservation of ownership when he obtains a final and conclusive judgment that confirms that the relevant real estate is owned by the applicant for registration of preservation in a lawsuit against the nominal owner. As a matter of principle, there is a benefit in the request for confirmation of ownership against the nominal owner. However, in a case

Meanwhile, even if the name of the owner is written on the old land cadastre arbitrarily restored for administrative convenience without any legal basis before the enforcement of the Cadastral Act amended by Act No. 2801 of Dec. 31, 1975, the competent authority does not recognize the burden of presumption of right regarding the owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da44947, Apr. 13, 1993; 98Da3485, Sept. 3, 199).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the land listed in Paragraph 6 of the attached Table of the judgment below was divided on August 28, 1989 after the land was restored to the owner on April 23, 1967 and the land was restored to the land owner on May 1, 1968, by 4, 5, 5, 12, 000 in Chuncheon-si-si-si-si-si-dong-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si (hereinafter referred to as "Yancheon-si-si-si-si-si-si-si"), barring any special circumstance, the above land and the owner's restoration was arbitrarily restored for administrative convenience without any legal basis, and therefore there is no presumption of rights.

Nevertheless, it is wrong that the Commission has no interest in confirming the Plaintiff's claim for confirmation of ownership against the Defendant Republic of Korea with respect to the above land.

However, even according to the records, it is evident that the plaintiff's claim for this part of the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, since there is no evidence to view that part of the 3-5 forest 1st 9th 1st Yacheon-gun, Gicheon-gun, Gicheon-gun, Gicheon-gun, Gicheon-gun, Gicheon-gun, Gicheon-do, the plaintiff jointly inherited was restored to the land listed in paragraph 6 of the above attached Table, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, as only the plaintiff appealed in accordance with the principle of no disadvantage prohibition.

2. As to the ground of appeal on the claim for cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership

In a case where a certain land is registered for the restoration of land in the cadastral record, the location, lot number, land category, land register, and boundary of the land shall be presumed to have been restored as it is, barring any special circumstance, such as that the relevant public official erroneously prepared the cadastral record due to clerical error in the course of the recovery of the cadastral record, the burden of proof for special circumstances, such as the location, lot number, land category, land register, and boundary of the land before the restoration of the land is presumed to have been restored as it is, and that the cadastral record has been falsely prepared due to clerical error of the relevant public official, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da54263, Feb. 24, 1998; 2006Da5

After finding the facts as stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that it is difficult to view that each of the lands stated in the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lot number, size, and shape of which are different, and most of the boundary lines are adjacent to the subsequent land, and thus, it is difficult to view that the previous land was cadastrally restored to the subsequent land because it is inconsistent with the boundary lines, in the registration protocol for incorporation into a reserved forest drawn up around July 10, 1939.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles due to violation of the rules

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)