The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part of the claim for confirmation of ownership is revoked, and this part of the lawsuit.

Before determining the grounds of appeal, we examine it ex officio.

As a result of the merger and division of land, the indication on the cadastral record was changed.

Even if the land itself prior to the annexation does not disappear or there is no change in the legal relationship as to the land, so the landowner does not have any obstacle to the claim of ownership without restoring the boundary of the former parcel number on the cadastral record as long as his/her own land can be specified or undergoing the procedure for confirmation of boundary by the lawsuit for confirmation of boundary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu1810, Apr. 12, 198; 2001Da20103, Sept. 24, 2002); however, if a parcel of land is not registered in the cadastral record, it cannot be said that there is no land, or that there is no benefit to the confirmation of ownership, unless there is any special reason, unless there is any special reason.

In order to register a parcel of land by dividing it into two or more parcels of land (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da2202, Jul. 24, 1992) and one parcel of land by dividing it into two or more parcels of land, the cadastral survey shall be conducted by the competent authority in the cadastral record first, and accordingly the parcel number, land category, boundary, or coordinate and area shall be determined for each parcel of land and the registration shall be made in the cadastral record. Therefore, the land of one parcel of land is divided into two or more parcels of land and the land before

Even if there is no procedure to determine the parcel number, land category, boundary, coordinates, area, etc. by the competent authority for the land after subdivision, the land after subdivision cannot be specified as the land which is not properly registered in the cadastral record, and as well as the Gu parcel number cannot be indicated and registered as to the land before subdivision, even if there is a lot number, the land before subdivision cannot be deemed to have been specified.

Supreme Court on March 27, 1984