The case holding that if the cadastral record was destroyed during the sixth and twenty-five incident and there is no evidence to confirm the owner, and if the parties to the lawsuit also gather the background of entry in the name of A in the land cadastre restored, it is presumed that the entry in the restored land cadastre was made at will by the tax office, and the above land cadastre is not legally restored, and it cannot be deemed that the land owner is A.

The case holding that if the previous cadastral record, such as the land cadastre, was destroyed and lost during the Korean incident, and there is no related data capable of verifying the owner as a result of the destruction, and if it is known that the party concerned was recorded in the name A as a result of any circumstance at the time of land cadastre restoration, the entry of the restored land cadastre is presumed to be voluntarily prepared by the competent tax office as reference material, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the above land cadastre was legally restored, and its contents cannot be deemed to be the land owner A.

Article 13 of the Cadastral Act, Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Da188 decided May 11, 1982 (Gong1982, 563) (Gong1987, 1069) 92Da8699 decided May 22, 1992 (Gong1992, 1986)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na33676 delivered on December 10, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s ground of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed)

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the land of this case was divided into Gegi-gun 2,052 around 1948, and the deceased non-party 1 sold the above land to the deceased non-party 2, who is the deceased's decedent. After that, while restoring the register and the land cadastre as of March 20, 1953, the land cadastre was destroyed during the 6/25 incident, the competent authority, and as of March 20, 1953, the owner of the land of this case 1 and 3 was recorded as ○○ (Korean Chinese) in the column of the owner of the land of this case. The owner of the land of this case was left public space. The land of this case 1 and 1,000 (Korean Chinese △△△△△△△) was part of the owner's land cadastre-gun 3, which was the lot number of the land of this case before division and administrative district change, and the land of this case was rejected by the court below as of the above 1,0001.

In this case where the permanent domicile of the deceased non-party 1, 00 (Korean Chinese name △△△△△), which was the parcel number prior to the division of the land in this case and the change of administrative district, died from the above parcel number on January 5, 1951, and there is no data on the fact that there was a seal of ○○○ (Korean name △△△△△△). Unlike other data, ○○○ (Korean name △△△△△) as indicated in the land cadastre column for the land cadastre for the second land restored on March 20, 1953, is a question that is not a clerical error of the deceased non-party 1, ○○ (Korean name △△△△△△△).

However, there is no provision regarding the restoration of the destroyed official cadastral record under the current Cadastral Act (amended by Act No. 2801, Act No. 4422), the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11998), and the former Enforcement Decree (Presidential Decree No. 810), prior to enforcement of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Presidential Decree No. 165), and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Presidential Decree No. 497 and No. 5015). According to the records, it can be known that the previous official cadastral record, such as the land in this case, was destroyed during the Korean War No. 625, and there is no room to confirm the owner of the land (the initial land registration of this case was omitted) and there is no evidence to prove that the owner of the land was legally recorded in the name of ○○○ (former Enforcement Decree No. 1998); therefore, the owner’s entry in the above land cadastre may be deemed to be a reference material for restoration of the land under Article 181815 of the Act.

Therefore, the lower court’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the former heir of the deceased non-party 1’s ○○○○ (Korean Chinese name △△△△△) was the owner of the instant land at the time of accepting the instant land is justifiable in its conclusion and cannot be said to have erred in violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, such as the theory

In addition, the theory of lawsuit is a new argument that the plaintiff acquired the above land by prescription, but it did not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal.

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 Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice) Park Young-dong Kim Jong-ho