(a) Effects of entries in registers made by illegal means, or by merger or division;

(b) Where the indication on the cadastral record changes by the merger and division of land, whether a landowner may claim his/her ownership without going through the boundary confirmation procedure.

(c) The validity of the relevant registration, in case where the register of new lot numbers and other legal relations are registered in the register on the unclosed lot numbers for the land that has been merged or divided;

(d) The meaning of "person who has registered as an owner" as a requirement for the acquisition by prescription of register;

(a) Even if the consolidation or subdivision of land was made in an unlawful manner, the entry of the registry shall not be deemed null and void as long as the relationship of rights before annexation or subdivision is transferred to the registry on the divided land.

B. Even if the indication on the cadastral record has changed due to the merger and division of land, the land itself prior to the merger, the loss of the land itself prior to the division, or the change of legal relationship with the land does not occur, so a landowner does not interfere with the claim of ownership without restoring the boundary of the former parcel number or undergoing the boundary confirmation procedure by the lawsuit for boundary confirmation as far as his/her own land can be specified.

(c) Where a new registration of preservation of ownership with respect to a new parcel number has been made with respect to the same land, without closing the register of the former parcel number before the merger and division on the public cadastral book with respect to the same land, and after the new registration of preservation of ownership with respect to the new parcel number has been made, the registration shall be made in accordance with the substantive legal relationship by falling under a double registration with respect to the former parcel number whose name

(d) A person who is a requirement for the acquisition by prescription of a registry and registered as an owner is not required to complete a lawful and effective registration, and even if it is null and void registration, if the person who is registered as the owner has occupied the real estate in good faith and without negligence, it is reasonable to say that the ownership may be acquired.

(a)Article 15, Article 93, Article 96 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 186 of the Civil Code, Article 211(d) of the Civil Code;

(a) Supreme Court Decision 84Meu2132 Decided March 10, 1987

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellant Lee Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 85Na2661 delivered on June 19, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the above facts as follows. (2) Before the incorporation into the above ○○○ Dong (number 1 omitted) land lot number of Gangdong-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as the "land number of this case"), the non-party 1 was originally owned. (3) The non-party 2 obtained it from the State due to the implementation of the Farmland Reform Act, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 31, 1961, and sold it to the non-party 3 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 17, 1963. (3) The non-party 3 omitted the registration of ownership transfer on the non-party 4's land. (6) The non-party 2 omitted the registration of ownership transfer on the non-party 1's land lot number of this case, and the non-party 3 omitted the registration of ownership transfer on the non-party 1's land (7) land lot number of this case. (4) The non-party 2 omitted the land lot number of this case.

The court below's conclusion is that the appraisal result of Non-party 5, which is the only evidence that the non-party 2's appraisal result is not based on the previous cadastral map, and it is clear that the location of the land of this case is specified in comparison with the new and old cadastral map, according to the entries of the first instance court's appraisal report on the above appraiser and the appraisal report prepared by the same person, according to the above appraisal result, it is clear that the land of this case is located in preparation for the new and old cadastral map.

2. The court below held that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the non-party 2 and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiff transferred before the merger or division of the former parcel number in the public cadastral book and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the non-party 1, which was transferred before the merger or division, are valid registration in accordance with the substantive legal relationship. The registration of ownership transfer in the name of the non-party 1, which was made in relation to the new parcel number after the division, was made in the non-party 2's form of farmland distribution and the payment of the farmland to the new parcel number after the division, was made in an unlawful merger or division of the land which cannot be combined with the owner due to the difference of the land. Therefore, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in holding that the registration of ownership transfer of the non-party 1, the new lot number of the land of this case, acquired by the non-party 2, after being divided into farmland and completed the repayment thereof, shall not be deemed to lose the land itself or lose the ownership of the non-party 2, even if the new lot number was set by the non-party 2, even if the new lot number was determined by the non-party 1, who is not the owner of the above new lot number, and the new registration of ownership transfer was completed by the registration of the previous lot number, because the registration of the ownership transfer cannot be deemed to correspond to the substantive legal relationship, and thus, even if the registration of ownership transfer was completed by the non-party 1, who is not the owner of the above new lot number, based on the registration of the previous lot number, it cannot be deemed to be null and void.

In order to claim ownership of the land which is not indicated on the public cadastral book due to the merger and division of the land, the former parcel number economy on the public cadastral book shall not be restored, or the boundary shall not be determined by the lawsuit for confirmation of boundary, but even if the indication on the public cadastral book is changed by the merger and division of the land, the land itself prior to the division does not disappear, or there is no change in the legal relationship with the land, so the landowner does not interfere with the claim of ownership even without going through the procedure as argued by the land owner as long as his own land can be specified.

In addition, the issue is that the registration can be made only with respect to the new lot number that has been changed after the annexation and division of the land on the public cadastral book, and that the registration of the former lot number has not been closed, even if the registration of the registration of the former lot number is made with respect to the same land, it is an invalid registration. However, if the registration of the new lot number after the annexation and division is made without closing the register of the previous lot number on the same land, but the registration of the new lot number after the annexation and division is made with respect to the new lot number in this case, if the registration of the registration of the new lot number is made differently from the registration of the new lot number in the public cadastral book on the former lot number, it is a double

3. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the defendant purchased the land of this case from the non-party 6 and transferred it on October 5, 1971 and completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the defendant as of December 30 of the same year, the court below continuously occupied it in a peaceful manner with the intention of ownership until then, and thus, it cannot be rejected on the ground that there is no evidence to prove otherwise in light of the witness evidence No. 13 and the testimony of non-party 7, non-party 8, non-party 6, non-party 9, etc., as of October 5, 1971 when 10 years have passed since October 5, 1971.

As there is no need for a person who has completed a lawful and effective registration as the owner to claim the prescriptive acquisition of the real estate, the person who has registered as the owner as the requirements for the acquisition by prescription of the registry does not need to complete the valid registration, and rather, it is reasonable to say that even if the registration is null and void registration, if the person who has registered as the owner possesses the real estate in good faith and without negligence for ten years, he can acquire the ownership of the real estate. Therefore, it is wrong for the court below to correct that the registration of the ownership transfer of the defendant's title to the land of this case as one of the grounds for rejecting the defendant's claim.

However, in light of the records, the court below's conclusion that the defendant did not acquire the land of this case by prescription is justified and proper in its result, and if the statement at the police station of the witness and the statement at the court are different from the witness's statement at the court, the court below must take the witness's statement at the court, and it merely criticizes the court below's legitimate fact-finding based on free will to criticize the defendant's above evidence preparation on the ground that there are some parts of the witness's statement adopted by the court below, which are inconsistent with the previous and latter part of the witness's statement.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)