Specific land registered in the cadastral record;

Where a certain land is registered with a land on which a piece of land is located in the cadastral record, the location, lot number, land category, cadastral area, and boundary of such land shall be specified by the registration, and the scope of ownership of such land shall be determined by the boundary on the cadastral record. However, where any special circumstance exists that has been mistakenly made due to a clerical error of a public official concerned in the process of re-settlementing the restoration in the cadastral record after a Korean incident, the parcel number

Article 3 of the Cadastral Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Da140 Decided May 27, 1969, 71Da871 Decided June 22, 1971, Decision 75Da1621 Decided April 27, 1976

Attorney Kim Tae-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

1. The case where the defendant et al. was involved in the plaintiff's act

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na3007 delivered on January 30, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In light of the provisions of Articles 3 through 7 and 15 through 20 of the Cadastral Act, if a certain land is registered with one square meter in the cadastral record, the location, lot number, land category, land category, and boundary of the land shall be deemed to have been defined as this registration unless there are other special circumstances. Thus, the scope of ownership of the land shall be determined by the boundary on the cadastral record as a precedent of the party members (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 75Da1621, Apr. 27, 1976; 71Da871, Jun. 22, 1971; 69Da140, May 27, 1969). However, the above precedents clearly recognize that the land is inconsistent with the boundary of the public official in the cadastral record, and thus, are inconsistent with the boundary of the land in the process of restoring the land, so long as there is no special circumstance to the extent that the land is inconsistent with the boundary on the cadastral record.

2. We examine the records and the judgment of the court below, and see the facts acknowledged by the court below, as follows. The 10th 5th 1st m3m m m m m m em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em.).

3. Therefore, it is clear that the registration of preservation of ownership was made on the 100 forest 2 forest 100 forest 5 forest 100 forest 10 forest 10 forest 5 forest 100 forest 100 forest 100 forest 100 forest 100 forest 12 July 14, 1959, and where the same person obtained double registration of preservation of ownership for the same land, registration which was made after the registration of real estate was made after the lapse of time, regardless of whether it conforms to the substantive legal relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da3259 delivered on August 25, 1981), the judgment of the court below that the registration of preservation of ownership was null and void under the above 10 forest 9 forest 10 forest 10 forest 9 forest 100 forest 10 forest 100 forest 100 forest 100 forest 100 forest 102 forest 1959,200

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

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)