Where a boundary in the cadastral map is falsely prepared due to technical errors, the criteria for determining the range of land ownership;

Where a parcel of land is registered with one parcel in the cadastral record under the Cadastral Act, the location, lot number, land category, land register, and boundary of the land shall be specified by this registration unless there are other special circumstances, and the scope of ownership shall be determined by the boundary on the public record regardless of the actual boundary, except in the case of special circumstances such as the erroneous selection of points in the cadastral record, etc., but in the preparation of the cadastral map, if there are special circumstances such as that the boundary on the cadastral map has been prepared differently from the true boundary, the boundary of

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

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant) and 1 other (Law No. 4500, Dec. 26, 1990, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Ltd., Kim & Lee, Attorneys Kim In-bok et al.

Daegu High Court Decision 94Na1501 delivered on November 2, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Adjudgments 1, 2 and 3

Where a parcel of land is registered with one parcel in the cadastral record under the Cadastral Act, the location, lot number, land category, land category, and boundary of the land shall be specified by this registration unless there are other special circumstances, and the scope of ownership shall be determined by the boundary on the public record regardless of the actual boundary. However, in the preparation of the cadastral map, where there are special circumstances such as where the boundary on the cadastral map was prepared differently from the true boundary due to technical errors, such as the error of selecting points, etc., due to such special circumstances as the error in selecting points, the boundary of the land shall be based on the actual boundary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da44503, Oct. 8, 1993; Supreme Court Decision 92Da5287, Apr. 13, 1993; 8Da19712, Dec. 26, 1990)

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the second site of this case was part of the building site of this case 1,689.7 square meters (2: 567 square meters prior to the combination + 219-3 1,122.7 square meters) at the time of the original adjudication, and that the numerical land register and the cadastral map should be prepared to include 100.1 square meters in the building site of this case due to technical errors, such as the selection of the known point and the cadastral map, etc., and as a result of the erroneous preparation of the numerical land register and the cadastral map of this case, the second site of this case was part of the building site of this case 1,689.7 square meters (2: 2.1,122.7 square meters prior to the combination, and 219-3.7 square meters prior to the combination. The above opinion of the court below is justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as seen above.

On the fourth ground

The court below's decision is just in rejecting the above argument on the ground that the above part of the building site was more than 10 years and it invested enormous costs on the above ground, building a steel 4-story sap shop in its decision (A) and seeking delivery and removal at now goes against the principle of good faith and constitutes abuse of rights. The above circumstance alone alone does not violate the principle of good faith to seek removal of the building of the above part of the building and delivery of the above part of the building site, nor constitutes abuse of rights, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit. The argument is without merit.

Therefore, the 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)