Where adjoining land which is inconsistent with the boundary of the public register is sold separately, the scope of each land ownership;

In a case where two adjacent lands owned by the same person, which are separate lands from the original one, are sold and purchased on the premise of the current status boundary, each party to each transaction in household affairs, even if each party clearly recognizes the difference between the current status boundary and the boundary on the public register, and the scope of each purchaser’s land ownership should be determined according to the current status boundary, only when each party clearly determines the scope of the subject matter of transaction according to the current status boundary distinct from the boundary on the public register, and simply if each party simply determined the scope of each land according to the current status boundary, either he knows that the current status boundary is consistent with the boundary on the public register immediately, or even if he/she clearly knows the difference between the current status boundary and the boundary on the public register, it is inevitable to determine the scope of each land’s ownership

Article 212 of the Civil Act, Articles 3 and 6 of the Cadastral Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Meu779, 780 decided Dec. 10, 1985 (Gong769No238), Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2261 Decided Feb. 24, 1987 (Gong798No526)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Jeonju District Court of the first instance (Law Firm 561, 83dan19)

Supreme Court Decision 85Meu779, 780 Decided December 10, 1985

1. Of the judgment on the principal lawsuit in the original judgment, the part against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) in excess of the next part of the judgment ordering performance is revoked, and the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s claim on the principal lawsuit in respect thereof is dismissed.

Defendant Lessee (Counterclaim) connects Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) with each point of 25,24,7,27,26, and25 of the [Attachment Map No. 25,24,7,26, and25] among the two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of two hundreds of two parallels of two hundreds of two parallels of two hundreds of two hundreds of two hundreds of two hundreds of two hundreds of five, nine point four square meters and the share value of 29,28,8,30,29, and29,522 of the ship connecting each point of nine hundreds of the two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of the two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of the two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of two parallels of one square meters, and shall pay KRW 79,522,00 won.

2. The remaining appeal and counterclaim against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed, respectively.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) in total, including the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim.

In addition to the judgment that ordered performance under Paragraph 1, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter only referred to as the Defendant) remove the fenced on the line that connects the point of 20,21,22, and23 of the land indicated in the order of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) in sequence, in addition to the judgment ordering performance under Paragraph 1.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

(1) Counterclaim Claim: (1) The plaintiff, as the main claim, shall comply with the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed by the Jeonju District Court No. 22806, Aug. 3, 1976, with respect to the 29.7 square meters of the land in which the order was entered.

(2) As the first preliminary claim, the plaintiff is entitled to execute the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on April 10, 1981 with respect to 29.7 square meters of the above land to the defendant for the completion of the acquisition by prescription.

(3) As the second preliminary claim, the plaintiff's decision that the non-party 1 shall perform the registration of ownership transfer based on the cancellation of title trust as of July 4, 1983 with respect to the 29.7 square meters of the above land, and the judgment that the lawsuit costs as to the above (1) through (3) shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The judgment dismissing the plaintiff's main claim and the judgment identical with the purport of the counterclaim.

1. Determination on the main claim

(1) The land in this case is presumed to be owned by the plaintiff since there is no dispute between the parties as to August 3, 1976 about the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the 259.2 square meters (78 square meters, 4 square meters, hereinafter the land in this case) from the Jeonju District Court received on August 3, 1976 as to the land in this case, the land in this case is presumed to be owned by the plaintiff. Meanwhile, the defendant owned the land in this case with 2-4, 58 and 2-17 square meters adjacent to the land in this case, the main building in this case and 11-7 square meters, 11-7 square meters in building and 15.04 square meters in building, and 1-2 square meters in building and 2-3 square meters in 28-3 square meters in building in each of the above two buildings in this case, and there is no dispute between the parties to each of the above two buildings in this case and the defendant ordered the removal of the land in this case (7-2 meters in each of building in this case).

(2) The defendant was originally owned by the non-party 2 as to the land in this case and the land adjacent thereto. The non-party 2 sold to the non-party 1 only the remaining part of the defendant's possession 29.7 square meters, excluding the part of the defendant's possession 29.5 square meters at the time of the sale of the land in this case, which was at the boundary of the signboard fence from November 19, 1960. The part of the 29.7 square meters at the above 29.7 square meters was not sold to the non-party 1. The above part of the 29.7 square meters was not sold to the non-party 1, and the above part of the 29.7 square meters was adjacent to it, the non-party 2 used the non-party 2 as a single house and sold it to the defendant on Oct. 20, 196. Meanwhile, the non-party 1 purchased the above part of the land in this case and sold it to the plaintiff on July 29, 197.7.

살피건대, 인접한 두 토지 사이의 지적도 등 공부상의 경계가 현황에 따른 경계와 불일치한다 하더라도 각 토지의 소유권의 범위는 공부상의 경계에 의하여 정하여지는 것이 원칙이라 할 것 이고 예외적으로 한필지였던 토지가 여러 사람에게 일부씩 분할매도되면서 현황경계에 따라 매매가 이루어졌으나 이에 따른 공부상 분할과정에서 측량의 기점을 잘못 정하는 등의 기술적 착오 또는 도면상으로만 어림잡아 분할하였다는 등의 사정으로 공부상 경계와 현황경계가 불일치하게 된 경우라면 그 각 토지의 경계는 현황경계에 따라 정해져야 할 것인바, 이와 달리, 원래부터 별개의 토지로 되어 있는 동일인 소유의 인접한 두 토지가 따로 매매된 경우에는, 가사 각 매매의 당사자가 각각 현황경계를 전제로 하여 매매를 하였다 하더라도 각 당사자가 그 현황경계와 공부상 경계와의 차이를 분명히 인식하면서 그 공부상 경계와 구별되는 현황경계에 따라 매매목적물의 범위를 정한 때에 한하여(이러한 때에는 그 불일치부분의 처리에 관한 약정을 하는 것이 보통일 것이다) 위와 같은 예외적 해석이 가능하다고 할 것이고, 단순히 각 당사자가 그 현황경계가 바로 공부상 경계와 일치하는 것으로 알았거나 현항경계와 공부상 경계가 어떻게 차이가 나는지 정확히 모르는 상태에서 막연히 현황에 따라 매매목적물의 범위를 정하였다가 나중에야 공부상 경계와의 불일치사실이 판명된 경우라면 원칙에 따라 공부상의 경계에 의하여 각 토지의 소유권의 범위를 정할 수 밖에 없다고 할 겄이다.

그런데 성립에 다툼이 없는 을 제1호증의 1 내지 3, 을 제2호증의 1,2(각 등기부등본)의 각 기재와 변론의 전취지에 의하면 이 사건 토지 및 이와 동쪽으로 인접한 위 26의 4 대 58평 및 28의 3 대 17평 등 3필의 토지는 모두 원래 소외 2의 소유였는데 각 토지가 매도된 결과 이 사건 토지는 1961.4.10. 소외 1 앞으로 소유권이전등기(원인 1960.11.19. 매매)가 마쳐진 뒤 앞에서 본대로 1976.8.3. 원고앞으로 소유권이전등기(원인 1976.5.7. 매매)가 마쳐졌고, 위 26의 4 대 58평 및 28의 3 대 17평은 1966.11.2. 피고앞으로 소유권이전등기(1966.10.20. 매매)가 마쳐진 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 위 원소유자였던 소외 2와 소외 1 사이 및 소외 1과 원고사이의 각 매매당시 각 매매당사자가 이 사건 토지와 인접 두 토지사이의 현황경계가 공부상 경계와 불일치한다는 사실을 분명히 인식하면서 공부상 경계에 따른 이 사건 토지의 범위 중 위 29.7평방미터 부분을 제외한 나머지 부분만을 매매목적물로 삼았는지 및 소외 2와 피고사이의 위 매매당시 소외 2와 피고가 역시 위의 불일치사실을 분명하게 인식하면서 위 29.7평방미터 부분까지를 포함하여 매매목적물로 삼았는지에 대하여 살피건대, 이 점에 부합하는 을 제5호증의 1, 을 제6호증의 1(각 확인서), 을 제13호증(인증서), 을 제14호증의 6,8,14(각 진술조서 또는 진술서), 을 제17호증의 2(문답서), 을 제18,20호증(각 확인서), 을 제19,21호증(각 인증서), 을 제23호증(매매계약서 초안, 작성일자가 단기 4293.11.10.로 기재된 매도인 소외 2, 매수인 소외 1의 아들 소외 3 사이의 매매계약서 초안인 바, 이 소외 2와 소외 1 사이의 매매계약서 원본에 관하여는 이미 환송전 당심에서 1984.12.7. 제출명령을 피고에게 발하였으나 분실하였다는 이유로 제출되지 않았는데 작성일로부터 26년가량 경과하고 이 사건 제소시로부터도 4년 가량 경과한 환송후 당심에 이르러서야 하필 그 초안만이 발견되었다는 것인지 선뜻 이해하기 어렵다)외 각 일부기재와 원심증인 소외 4, 1, 환송전 당심증인 소외 5, 환송후 당심증인 소외 6, 7, 8의 각 일부증언은 믿기 어렵고 을 제4호증(매매계약서, 이중 "현 경계내로 함"이라는 기재의 의미에 관하여는 뒤에서 따로 설시한다), 을 제8호증의 1(사진),2 내지 4(각 확인서), 을 제9,11호증(각 건축물관리 대장), 을 제10호증(재산세과세대장), 을 제14호증의 2(공소장),5(의견서),7,9 내지 13(각 진술조서)의 각 기재와 원심증인 소외 9, 10, 11, 12, 13의 각 증언만으로는 이를 인정하기에 부족하며 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다. 오히려 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제8호증(토지대장등본), 갑 제10호증(합필등기신청서), 갑 제13호증의 2(피의자신문조서),4(진술조서, 뒤에서 믿지 않는 부분 제외), 공성부분에 다툼이 없고 변론의 전취지에 의하여 사문서부분의 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 제4호증의 1(통고문), 갑 제9호증(매도증서)의 각 기재와 원심증인 14, 환송전당심증인 소외 5(앞에서 믿지 아니한 부분제외하고 기록 605장중 "을 제5호증의 1에 첨부된 지적도와 같은 도면은 1960년도의 소외 2 소외 1 사이의 매매계약당시에는 없었다"라는 취재의 증언)의 각 증언에 변론의 전취지를 합쳐보면, 위 각 매매당시 각 매매당사자는 이 사건 토지와 위 인접 두 토지와의 현황경계(1960.11.경의 소외 2, 1간 매매당시에는 판자울타리였으나 1961.3.경 뒤에서 설시하는 바와 같이 소외 1이 이를 철거하고 그 위치에 세멘브록담을 세웠다)가 공부상 경계와 일치하지 않는 사실을 알지 못한 채 현황경계와 공부상 경계가 일치하는 것으로 알고 위 각 매매계약을 체결하고 그에 따른 각 소유권등기를 마쳤다가 후에 1979.3.경 처마끝의 낙수처리 문제로 원·피고사이에 분쟁이 생긴 끝에 비로소 경계측량이 이루어짐으로써 비로소 현황경계와 공부상 경계의 불일치사실, 즉 피고가 이 사건 토지 중 위 29.7평방미터 부분을 침범점유하는 사실이 밝혀진 사실, 다만 소외 1과 원고사이의 매매계약서인 을 제4호증의 매매목적물표시란에 "현 경계내로 함"이라는 기재가 있으나 이는 이 사건 토지와 위 인접 두 토지와의 경계에 관한 기재가 아니라, 위 매매시인 1976.5.7. 당시에는 이 사건 토지의 등기부상 면적이 79평(현재의 면적보다 6홉이 넓음)이었는 바, 그 중 이 사건 토지의 서쪽 피고소유의 위 두 토지의 반대쪽임)으로 인접한 같은 동 2가 29의 5 대 25평과의 경계선이 그 토지쪽으로 "ㄷ"자 형으로 구부러져 있어 서로 이용상 불편이 있었으므로 소외 1이 그 토지소유자인 15와 사이에 그 경계선을 직선화하고 거기서 생긴 조각땅 6홉 부분을 15에게 양도키로 합의한 곁과 그 6홉 부분이 이미 1972.8.11.에 토지대장상 분할이 되어 위 29의 5 대 25평에 합병까지 되어 있었으나 등기부상으로는 아직 분필 및 합필등기가 되지 않은 상태였기 때문에, 소외 1과 원고는 등개부상의 면적 78평중 위 6홉 부분을 매매목적물에서 제외할 의사로 매매계약서에 매매목적물의 면적을 79평으로 표시하는 한편 그 밑에 괄호하고 위 "현 경계내로 함"이라는 기재를 한데 불과하였던 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is eventually groundless.

(3) Following the Defendant: (a) from April 10, 1961 to April 10, 1961, when Nonparty 2 sold the instant land to Nonparty 1 and completed the registration of ownership transfer, the Defendant continued to occupy the above 29.7 square meters portion of the instant land with its intention to own it, and on October 20, 1966, sold the same 29.7 square meters adjacent to that 26-4 and 28-32 land to the Defendant on November 2, 1966; and (b) continued to occupy the same 29.7 square meters since it was delivered to the Defendant on April 10, 1961; and (c) as such, it cannot be acknowledged that the Defendant acquired the right to claim the ownership transfer registration of the said part of the instant land from Nonparty 1 to the Plaintiff at the first time after the expiration of the said 19-year period (excluding the part of Nonparty 2’s testimony at the first time after the expiration of the said 1-year period, and each of the aforementioned 1-year period was presumed to have existed.

(4) In addition, on November 19, 1960, the defendant sold only 229.5 square meters excluding the above 29.7 square meters portion out of the land of this case to the non-party 1, who was the original owner of the land of this case, to the non-party 1 trust the above 29.7 square meters portion for the convenience of avoiding land division spreading. On April 10, 1961, the defendant issued the registration of ownership transfer to the non-party 1 as to the whole land of this case, and on May 7, 1976, the non-party 2 sold only the above portion out of this case's land of this case to the plaintiff, and on August 3, 1976, the plaintiff was legally entitled to the registration of ownership transfer transfer from the non-party 2 to the non-party 3's first right to the non-party 2's land of this case, and the defendant was not entitled to the registration of ownership transfer transfer from the non-party 2 to the non-party 2's title trust 4 and the above part.

Therefore, as to whether there was an agreement between Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1, respectively, as above, and whether there was an agreement between Nonparty 1 and the Plaintiff as above defense, it is hard to see that: (a) evidence No. 5-1, No. 6-1, No. 13; (b) evidence No. 14-2, No. 17-2, No. 18, No. 19,20, No. 21, and No. 23; (c) evidence No. 18, No. 4; (d) evidence No. 1 to acknowledge that there was an agreement between Nonparty 1 and the Plaintiff; (e) evidence No. 6, No. 7, and No. 8 after remanding the lower court’s witness, and (e) evidence No. 1 to acknowledge that there was an agreement between Nonparty 1 and the Plaintiff on title trust was insufficient to recognize that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on title trust, as stated in the above (e.g., the period and time of each Defendant’s purchase of each title trust).

(5) In addition, the Defendant asserts that the removal order under Paragraph (1) of the Disposition No. 1 cannot be separated from the body building built in 1945, and that the part cannot be separated from the body building built in 1953. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim to remove the above part is an abuse of right. However, just because the above defense is not sufficient to deem the Plaintiff’s claim to remove the land ownership as abuse of right. Thus, there is no ground for the above defense.

(6) Meanwhile, since the plaintiff seeks to remove cement fences constructed on the line connected to each point of 20,21,22,23 among the land in this case, the plaintiff tried to remove them. There is no dispute between the parties that the above fences were installed at the same location as the above mentioned above. However, the plaintiff's partial entry of Gap evidence 13-3,5,6,8 (Examination of Evidence), 4,7 (Examination of Evidence), and testimony of the court below 16,17 (Examination of Evidence), which correspond to the fact that the above fences are owned by the defendant, and the testimony of the court below 16,17 (Examination of Evidence), are hard to believe it and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Rather, since the above statement of evidence Nos. 14-2 ( Indictment), 7,9,10,11 (Dismissal), and 11 (Examination) as well as the above statement of evidence of the non-party 9, 10,112, and 13 at its own expense, the plaintiff's pre-owned of the above land and the above part of non-party 16.

(7) Ultimately, the defendant is obligated to remove each part of the building owned by the defendant located on the ground of the above part of the land in this case, deliver the above part of the land occupied by the defendant, and pay damages for the rent of the plaintiff from January 1, 197 to December 31, 1982 as the result of the defendant's occupancy commencement date. According to the appraisal of the Kim Young-chul, the amount equivalent to the rent of the above from January 1, 197 to December 31, 1982 can be recognized as constituting a total sum of 79,522, and there is no counter-proof.

2. Judgment on the counterclaim

The defendant, as the primary counterclaim, sought the implementation of the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer due to the invalidation of cause, and the first preliminary counterclaim, and the execution of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer due to the completion of prescription, was all dismissed at the trial before remanding, but the defendant did not appeal, and only the plaintiff did not appeal the part against the plaintiff (citing the second preliminary counterclaim) and reversed and remanded by the Supreme Court, the above primary counterclaim claim and the first preliminary counterclaim claim are not subject to adjudication after remanding. Thus, the decision shall be made only on the second preliminary counterclaim.

As the Defendant asserted in Paragraph (4) of the judgment on the claim in this case as the second preliminary counterclaim, the Defendant was a title trust with respect to the above 29.7 square meters portion between Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 1, who was the original owner of the land in this case, and thereafter, the title trust was made between Nonparty 1 and the Plaintiff who was the purchaser of the land in this case. Meanwhile, the Defendant purchased the above 29.7 square meters portion from Nonparty 2 and the above 29.7 square meters and claimed ownership transfer registration right. Thus, the Defendant issued a right to claim ownership transfer registration against the Plaintiff, based on this right to claim, issued a notice of intention to terminate the title trust with respect to the Plaintiff on July 4, 1983 by service of the application for change of the right to claim in this case on behalf of Nonparty 2 and 1 in sequence. The Plaintiff asserted that Nonparty 1 is liable to implement the ownership transfer registration procedure as to the above 29.7 square meters portion.

However, the argument that each of the above nominal trusts existed is without merit, and this argument is identical to that already determined in Paragraph (4) of the judgment on the above claim. Therefore, this argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim in this case refers to the removal of the part 1 in this case's land and the part 29.7 square meters above the part 29.7 square meters above, and the removal of the part 29.7 square meters above the part 29.7 square meters above the part 29.7 square meters above the part 29.2, and the plaintiff's claim in this lawsuit and the defendant's counterclaim shall be dismissed, without merit. Since the court below accepted the plaintiff's claim in this lawsuit only with regard to the plaintiff's claim in part, since the part 2 different conclusions as to the plaintiff's claim in this lawsuit against the defendant which exceeded the above cited part among the plaintiff's claim in this lawsuit, the plaintiff's claim in this part is dismissed, and the remaining appeal (the remaining appeal as to the plaintiff's lawsuit and counterclaim) by the defendant is dismissed as without merit, and the proviso to Articles 96, 89, and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be applied to the total cost of the lawsuit, and

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)