[1] In a case where a registration for the restoration of a forest whose register and cadastral record have been destroyed due to an incident of June 25, 199, whether it can be deemed that the forest was divided into several parcels before the loss of the cadastral record solely on the ground that the registration for the restoration of a destroyed forest was made by dividing it into several parcels or that the forestry register was restored by the former Cadastral Act (negative)

[2] The validity of the registration of transfer of ownership as to the land divided into several parcels due to registration injury without taking a partition procedure in the forestry map or the forestry cadastral book after the registration of the restoration of the destruction of the register and the cadastral record were destroyed by one parcel (negative)

[1] According to the summary of the registration of restoration of real estate ownership by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of October 15, 1952, the application for registration of restoration of real estate ownership shall be accompanied by the certificate of completion of registration of restoration of real estate ownership. However, if it is impossible to submit it, the application may be accompanied by a certified copy or abstract of the register immediately before the destruction is made, a certified copy of land cadastre and other official documents certifying the rights. Thus, the registration of restoration of destruction shall be presumed to have been lawfully handled by the application form where the public official who registered the registration of restoration of property proves the rights of the former registration in accordance with the outline of the registration of restoration of destruction, and barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to deem that the forest where the registration of restoration of destruction was made on one parcel

[2] The forest land before subdivision is divided only into a registration injury, and even if the ownership transfer registration is completed based on it, since the division does not take effect since the division is not effected in the forest land register and the forest land map, each ownership transfer registration in the name of the owner on the register for the forest land after subdivision is null and void since it violates the principle of one real estate lot for one land, barring any special circumstance. Therefore, the forest land before subdivision exists as a forest land within one parcel, and its owner shall be deemed as the person under whose name the restoration registration is still the person under whose name it is registered.

[1] Articles 80 and 81 of the Registration of Real Estate Act / [2] Articles 3, 6, 17, and 19 of the Cadastral Act; Article 186 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 80Da3286 delivered on November 24, 1981 (Gong1982, 66), Supreme Court Decision 93Da61970 delivered on March 17, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1707), Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Da1251 delivered on October 17, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3186), Supreme Court Decision 96Da1938 delivered on October 29, 196 (Gong196Ha, 3522) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 90Da25208 delivered on December 7, 199 (Gong191, 491, 1941), Supreme Court Decision 96Da45499 delivered on June 14, 195 (Gong1995, 195)

Youngdong Urban Gas Industry Co., Ltd. (Attorney Ho-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant

Chuncheon District Court Decision 95Na1129 delivered on September 29, 1995

The judgment of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The facts pertaining to the registry and the registration in the cadastral record of the forest land in the instant dispute acknowledged by the evidence established by the lower court are as follows.

The register and cadastral record with respect to the forest land of this case, which is 17,652 square meters in 7 m200, 7 m2000, 7 m2001, 7 m20022, were all destroyed. As to the forest land before the division of this case, the registration of ownership transfer due to the restoration was completed under Nonparty 1’s name on June 30, 1954, the forest land of this case was divided into 7 m200, 7 m200, 7 m200, 1007 m20, 400 ( Address 4 omitted), 10,000,000 m20,000,000 m21,000,000,000 m20,000,000 m2,000,000,000 m20,000,000.

The registration of transfer was completed on April 18, 1968 with respect to the non-party 1/2,250 shares in the 7th 5th 1,250 shares in the forest land before the second 7th 10th 5th 1, and the registration of transfer was completed on December 3, 1993 to the plaintiff. The non-party 2 was divided into the forest land in this case and the ( Address 2 omitted) forest land 92m2 with respect to the non-party 1 shares in this case on the ground of the non-party 1 shares in the name of the non-party 5th 1,60 m2, and the non-party 1 shares in the name of the non-party 2, 96 mal. 1, 97 m. 1, 1965 m. 2, 1965 m. 1, 1965 m. 1, 265).

The forest land before the instant partition was surveyed as one parcel in the course of cadastral restoration, and the boundary and area were determined, and the forestry map was prepared accordingly. However, on February 15, 1971, in the forest land register, the forest land was divided into the 7th 5th bit of forest land, the 7th bit of forest land, the 9th bit of forest ( Address 3 omitted), the 1st 5th bit of forest, the 7th bit of forest ( Address 4 omitted), the 7th bit of forest ( Address 5 omitted), the 1st 1 unit of forest, the 2th 1 unit of forest, the 9th bit of forest ( Address 7 omitted), and the 9th bit of forest ( Address 8 omitted), and the 9th bit of forest.

On May 10, 1979, Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 filed an application with the competent authority for dividing the instant forest into 10,214 square meters of forest land and 7,438 square meters of forest land ( Address 1 omitted) before the instant partition, along with the results of the cadastral survey and the written consent of some owners of adjacent land in Gangseo-si, which is the competent authority for cadastral surveying. Accordingly, only the boundary of forest land ( Address 2 omitted) before the instant partition among the forest land before the instant partition was determined on the forestry map. At the time, the boundary between the forest land and the ( Address 3 omitted) which had been divided into the forest land register and the registration due to the injury, remains without specifying the boundary between the forest and the ( Address 9 omitted).

2. Furthermore, according to the above facts, prior to the destruction of the cadastral record, the forest prior to the division was already divided into the forest after the first division ( Address 2 omitted) through ( Address 9 omitted) before the destruction of the cadastral record, and its boundaries were reached now. As the cadastral records were restored on February 15, 1971, which was at the time of the enforcement of the former Cadastral Act (amended by Act No. 2801 of Dec. 31, 1975), the said forest was restored to the above forest, but the registered matters in the forestry register and the forestry map were restored to the said forest, but the forest land map were restored to the one prior to the division, and the registered matters in the forestry map were inconsistent with each other. This is a case where there was an error in the cadastral record, and, upon the revision of this, the boundary of the remaining forest, which was divided from the forest before the division of this case was changed, the landowner of the said forest or forest land did not have any evidence of the correction of the registered matters in the forestry map at the time of this case.

3. However, in accordance with the above facts acknowledged by the court below, it is very doubtful whether it can be readily concluded that the forest land before and after the first division was already divided into the above ( Address 2 omitted) through ( Address 9 omitted) forest land after the first division, and even if examining the records, it is deemed that there is no ground for ratification of the above judgment by the court below. Rather, according to the outline for executing the registration of the restoration of real estate ownership by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on October 15, 1952, the application for registration of the restoration of real estate is accompanied by the certificate of completion of the registration of the previous registration (the previous registration) but if it is impossible to submit it, the copy or abstract of the register before the destruction, and a copy of the land register or other public document certifying the rights can be attached to the non-party 1’s original registration (the non-party 1’s official document certifying his rights according to the outline for the restoration of the original registration is not legally treated as the previous registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da168197.

If the above circumstances are as follows: (a) the forest land before the division was divided into two or more parts on February 1965, and (b) the ownership transfer registration was completed on the forest land register and the forestry map; (c) the division did not take effect on the premise; and (d) the ownership transfer registration on the forest land after the first division was entered into force on the forest land (location 2 omitted) to Nonparty 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 11 in violation of the principle of one land ownership registration; (d) the forest land before the division is owned by Nonparty 1 and the owner on the forest land register, and (e) the ownership transfer registration on the forest land register, which is owned by Nonparty 1 and the owner on the land under the title of 5, which is owned by Nonparty 1, 1965, and (e) the ownership transfer registration on the forest land register, which is owned by Nonparty 1, 194Da4615, Jun. 16, 195, 2097).

Nevertheless, without any evidence corresponding thereto, the court below deemed that the forest land before the division in this case was already divided into the forest land after the first division ( Address 2 omitted) through ( Address 9 omitted) before the destruction of the cadastral record, and concluded that the division in the forestry map as of May 10, 1979 was null and void, and on this premise, the non-party 1 sold to the non-party 2, and if the non-party 1 sold to the non-party 2 a co-ownership share in the part before the division in this case under the current status, the court below did not examine whether the part in this case is consistent with the ( Address 2 omitted) forest land location, area, and boundary after the division in the forestry map as of May 10, 1979, and dismissed the plaintiff's request without examining the facts against the rules of evidence, and it affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to the land division and the validity of the subdivision registration, and by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)