(a) Scope of the ownership of land in a lot registered in the cadastral record;

(b) Where boundary marks in the cadastral map are indicated differently from the de facto boundary lines, the objects of land trade;

A. If a certain land is registered as a parcel of land on the cadastral record, the location, lot number, land category, land category, and boundary of the land shall be specified as this registration unless there are other special circumstances. Therefore, the scope of ownership shall be determined by the boundary line on the cadastral record.

B. In a common case of land transaction, the land determined by the entry in the cadastral record shall be the object of transaction. Thus, even if the boundary indication in the cadastral record was indicated differently from the de facto boundary line due to the error in the partition survey, etc., it shall be deemed that only the land determined by the parcel number, land category, cadastral record, and boundary recorded in the cadastral record is traded, regardless of the de facto boundary line, unless there are special circumstances, such as the transaction of the land determined by the transaction party is not an intention to trade the land determined in the cadastral

Articles 3 and 6 of the Cadastral Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Da889,890 Decided October 28, 1969; 71Da871 Decided June 22, 1971; 75Da1621 Decided April 27, 1976; 81Da611 Decided June 8, 1982; 69Da89,890 Decided October 28, 1969

Plaintiff 1 and eight others

Defendant-Appellant Park Jong-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Daejeon District Court Decision 83Na360 delivered on April 4, 1984

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court: (a) deemed that Nonparty 1’s above-mentioned address was destroyed by the Defendant’s non-party 4 and non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 3’s non-party 6’s non-party 1’s non-party 6’s non-party 1’s non-party 6’s non-party 1’s non-party 4’s non-party 6’s non-party 1’s non-party 6’s non-party 1’s non-party 4’s non-party 6’s non-party 1’s non-party 6’s non-party 1’s non-party 6’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 9’s non-party 1’s non-party 6’s non-party 9’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 9’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’6’s non-party

2. However, according to Articles 2, 3, 10, and 15 of the Regulations on Forestry at the time of entry into force, the land to be newly registered in the forestry register is to be surveyed and the boundary point of each lot number is to be determined, and the land is to be registered in the forestry register as the location, lot number, land category, and owner’s name as to the land registered in the forestry register, and to be registered in the forestry register (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da1678, Jun. 8, 198; Supreme Court Decision 9Da68167, Jun. 27, 1987). Since the boundary point of each of the above land is not determined by the boundary point of each of the cadastral records (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da168167, Jun. 8, 198; 200Da8167, Jun. 17, 2017).

The court below, on the ground that the boundary of the land in its decision was erroneous at the time of subdivision and determination as to whether there exists such special circumstance, and on the premise that Nonparty 4, the inheritee of the plaintiffs, purchased through the above predecessor, through the forestry map, the land was specified by the cadastral record, and that the plaintiffs' claim for ownership confirmation was made on the premise that the land was ( Address 1 omitted), not by the land cadastral map, but by the actual boundary line, and that the land was traded on the land as an ordinary case. The above non-party 4 did not err in the violation of the rules of evidence established without evidence, or in incomplete deliberation or insufficient reasoning because the above non-party 4, the above non-party 4, including the above non-party 4, purchased the ownership transfer registration on the part of the above forest land as to the non-party 4, the ownership transfer registration on the land was made on the premise that the ownership transfer registration on the land was made on the ground that the non-party 1, the above non-party 4, including the above non-party 4, could not be seen 1, in light of the above legal principles.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed in accordance with Article 12 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Therefore, the appeal pointing this out shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju