[1] Whether the scope of ownership of land registered in the cadastral record is determined by the boundary on the cadastral record regardless of the actual boundary (affirmative in principle)

[2] The method of surveying the boundary restoration in order to restore the cadastral boundary on an actual basis due to the boundary erosion of land (=the method of surveying at the time of registration)

[1] Article 3 of the former Cadastral Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on Land Survey, Waterway Survey and Cadastral Records, Act No. 9774, Jun. 9, 2009); Article 212 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 32 (2) 4 of the former Cadastral Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on Land Survey, Waterway Survey and Cadastral Records, Act No. 9774, Jun. 9, 2009) (see Article 23 (1) 4 of the current Act on Land Survey, Waterway Survey and Cadastral Records)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Da233 delivered on February 9, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1571 delivered on April 23, 1996) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2002Da17791, 17807 delivered on October 10, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 2167) Supreme Court Decision 2008Da5530 delivered on May 29, 2008

Plaintiff (Attorney Choi Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Republic of Korea and one other (Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Jeonju District Court Decision 2010Na6867 decided August 8, 2011

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Unless there are special circumstances, such as technical errors, when a certain land is registered as a parcel of land in the cadastral record under the Cadastral Act, the land is specified by the registration, barring special circumstances, so the scope of land ownership shall be determined by the boundary on the cadastral record regardless of the actual boundary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da2333, Feb. 9, 196; 95Da54761, Apr. 23, 1996). In addition, in preparing a cadastral map, the boundary restoration surveying conducted to restore the boundary on the cadastral map as a problem of boundary erosion at the time of registration should be done by the same method as at the time of registration. Secondly, the cadastral surveying method at the time of registration should be based on the cadastral surveying method at the time of registration, and even if there is no accuracy as at the time of registration or technology development, the boundary restoration surveying method at the time of registration should be conducted by the method of surveying at the time of registration at the time of registration at the time of time of registration. 2008Da57197.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on March 22, 1976, the court below acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, such as the fact that the survey was conducted upon the application for correction of cadastral errors against the plaintiff's land and neighboring land before subdivision and the cadastral map was organized. In the preparation of the cadastral map, unless there are special circumstances such as the technical error and the cadastral boundary was prepared differently from the true cadastral boundary, in order to restore the boundary on the cadastral map, the court below should find out what method was used at the time of the correction and conduct a boundary restoration survey according to the same method. On March 22, 1976, when the cadastral map was adjusted, the boundary restoration survey on the land around the plaintiff's land before subdivision was conducted by the starting point method; there was no data to recognize that the boundary restoration survey was conducted by the standard point method in the plaintiff's neighboring land before subdivision; and the land boundary restoration method was not determined by the boundary restoration method in accordance with the plaintiff's cadastral map at the time of subdivision 1976.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the court below's determination of boundaries is just on the premise that the circumstances such as the technical error was not recognized when the cadastral map was arranged differently from the true boundary line due to the technical error in the cadastral map around March 22, 1976, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the remaining method of boundary restoration and cadastral control point and the confirmation of boundary, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

In addition, the argument that the boundary between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s land owned by the Republic of Korea was not changed from the time of the initial registration, and that at the time of the revision of the cadastral error around 1976, the landowners agreed to determine the boundary like the current cadastral boundary, and that the land owned by the Plaintiff’s land and the Defendant’s land owned by the Republic of Korea should be determined at the present boundary, is a new argument as to the fact that

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the 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 Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)