Where the scope of ownership shall be determined according to the actual boundary without depending on the method of determining the scope of land ownership registered in the cadastral record and the boundary of the cadastral record.

If a specific land is registered with one parcel of land according to the cadastral record, the scope of land ownership shall be determined by the boundary on the cadastral record. However, if the cadastral map does not reflect the natural environment, such as a river or ditch, which is artificially or easily changing, it is reasonable to deem that such cadastral map was mistakenly prepared, it is not based on the boundary on the cadastral record, but on the boundary of the reality, the range of ownership should be determined by the boundary on the cadastral record.

Article 212 of the Civil Act, Article 3 of the Cadastral Act

Supreme Court Decision 89Da31180 Decided April 9, 1991 (Gong1991, 1339), Supreme Court Decision 91Da3180 Decided May 12, 1992 (Gong1992, 1836), Supreme Court Decision 91Da4193 Decided May 22, 192 (Gong192, 1973)

Plaintiff (Withdrawal)

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 and 3 others

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1

Busan District Court Decision 91Na6792 delivered on July 10, 1992

The plaintiff succeeding intervenor's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff's successor.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, although the result of a survey and appraisal based on the cadastral map by which it is possible to recognize that the building owned by the defendant was invaded by the part of the land in this case owned by the succeeding intervenor, the court below determined that the aforementioned land and the land ( Address 1 omitted) owned by the defendant were located between the state owner ( Address 2 omitted), and that the land and the land in this case owned by the defendant are facing each other, and the land ( Address 1 omitted) located at the south side of the above ditch was constructed at the ( Address 1 omitted) where the land in this case was located before the tidal bank and the land in this case. However, the above land of this case should be divided into cement by the residents before 20 years, and the above land of this case should be used as a mountain village, and the land of this case should be divided into the boundary between the succeeding intervenor and each land owned by the defendant, and the land of this case should be divided into the boundary of each land (the boundary of the original land in this case and the land registration of this case should be divided into the boundary of each of the above land).

If a certain land is registered with one parcel of land based on the cadastral record, the scope of ownership of the land shall be determined by the boundary on the cadastral record. However, if the cadastral map is not artificially changed or easily changed, such as a river or ditch, which cannot be easily changed, it is reasonable to deem that the cadastral map has been mistakenly prepared. Thus, in such a case, the scope of ownership should not be determined by the boundary on the cadastral record, but by the boundary on the actual condition.

If the facts of this case are the same as the decision of the court below, the decision of the court below that the scope of ownership of the land of this case owned by the successor does not extend to the building owned by the defendant according to the actual boundary not based on the cadastral boundary, is just, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the Cadastral Act and the Land Survey Act, such as theory

Therefore, the successor's appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.