Where a certain land is registered as the land of a parcel in the cadastral record, whether it is presumed that the location, lot number, land category, and boundary of the land before the cadastral restoration is restored as it is (affirmative in principle), and the burden of proving that the cadastral record has been mistakenly prepared (=party asserting this)

Article 74 of the Act on the Establishment, Management, etc. of Spatial Data, Article 61 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Establishment, Management, etc. of Spatial Data, Article 288 of the Civil Procedure

Supreme Court Decision 96Da54263 Decided February 24, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 843) Supreme Court Decision 2010Da21757 Decided July 8, 2010 (Gong2010Ha, 1547)

Plaintiff

Korea

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2017Na51911 Decided November 14, 2018

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Where a certain land is registered as a parcel of land in the cadastral record, the location, parcel number, land category, and land boundary of the parcel of land shall be presumed to have been restored as it is, barring any special circumstance, such as where the relevant public official erroneously prepared the cadastral record due to clerical error in the process of re-re-re-re-re-re-determination of the cadastral record. The burden of proof for special circumstances, such as that the cadastral record was mistakenly prepared due to the clerical error of the relevant public official, is the party asserting it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da54263, Feb. 24, 1998; 2010Da21757, Jul. 8, 2010).

2. According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court and the record, the following facts are revealed.

With respect to 1,320 square meters prior to the Dolsan-gun, ○○○-gun, Gangwon-do (hereinafter referred to as “Dolsan-gun land”), the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the Nonparty on March 5, 1940, and the Plaintiff was inherited. On December 22, 1988, the Defendant filed a registration of ownership transfer on the forest 4,383 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “Dolsan-si land”) in the name of the Defendant.

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of authentic names with respect to the land of △△san, which is located in the land of Dolsan and the land of Dolsan, for the sake of restoring authentic names.

3. The lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on the following grounds.

There exists a sales certificate that purchased the land in Dorisan, which the Nonparty left,. There exists a certified copy of the register of the land in Dorisan, but there is no land cadastre or land cadastre, and there is no indication in the cadastral map. Two lands located in the vicinity of each other in the previous forestry map but not connected with each other, and one of them is identical with the land in the current cadastral map of Dorisan, which is located in the current cadastral map. The area of the register of the land in Dorisan, Busan, which is located in approximately 1,320 square meters ( approximately 4,363 square meters). However, it is insufficient to recognize that the above circumstance alone is the same as the land in Dorisan, Busan, which is located in the area of the land in Dorisan, Busan, which is located in approximately 1,320 square meters (4,383 square meters).

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower judgment is justifiable in light of the foregoing legal doctrine. In so determining, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical

4. The Plaintiff’s appeal is without merit, 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 Lee Dong-won (Presiding Justice)