(a) A register with respect to part of one parcel of land without a cadastral survey, lot number, boundary and confirmation procedure by the competent authority in the cadastral record;

B. Scope of trial of the remanded court

A. In order to register one parcel of land by dividing it into two or more parcels of land, it is possible to first conduct a cadastral survey by the competent authority in the cadastral record, and accordingly, registration can only be made when the parcel number, land category, boundary, or coordinates and area are determined for each parcel of land and the registration in the cadastral record should be made. If it is impossible for the competent authority in the cadastral record to implement these procedures in the cadastral record as a list attached to the judgment, the land is combined, and even if the land is distinguishable by the former parcel number display, the former parcel number cannot be indicated and registered unless there is a confirmation procedure such as the parcel number and cadastral record by the competent authority. Thus, even if there is

B. The court, which received a return or transfer of a case by the court of final appeal, is bound by a judgment of remanding the case as the reason for reversal, and is not limited to only one part of the judgment that is the reason for reversal of the judgment of remanding the case. Thus, the court, which received the remanded case, may proceed with the pleading in accordance with the procedure of the court, and the parties to the lawsuit may also submit a new means of attack and defense.

(a) Article 3 of the Cadastral Act. Article 93 of the Registration of Real Estate Act. Article 76(a) of the Civil Act. Article 186(b) of the Civil Procedure Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendant 4, Attorney Song Jin-jin, Song Young-young, Counsel for the defendant 4-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 82Na994,995 (Consolidated) decided April 29, 1983

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to ground of appeal No. 1

원심판결에 의하면, 원심은 (1) 제1심공동피고 소외인은 수원지방법원 1978.3.7. 접수 제7983호로서 1978.3.6. 가등기해제를 원인으로 말소된 별지 제1,2,3,4 목록기재 부동산에 관한 같은법원 1977.8.6 접수 제26110호 1977.8.5 매매예약에 인한 소유권이전등기청구권보전을 위한 가등기의 회복등기절차를 (2) 피고 1은 같은법원 1978.3.7 접수 제3984호로서 1978.3.6 가등기해제를 원인으로 말소된 별지 제12,13,14,15 목록기재 부동산에 관한 같은법원 1977.10.14 접수 제36338호 1977.10.14 매매예약에 의한 소유권이전등기청구권보전을 위한 가등기의 회복등기절차를 (3) 피고 2는 같은법원 1978.3.7 접수 제7985호로서 1978.3.6 가등기해제를 원인으로 말소된 별지 제5,6 목록기재 부동산에 관한 같은법원 1977.8.6 접수 제26111호 1977.8.5 매매예약에 의한 소유권이전등기청구권보전을 위한 가등기의 회복등기절차를 (4) 피고 2, 피고 3은 같은법원 1978.4.25 접수 제16587호로서 1978.3.6 가등기해제를 원인으로 말소된 별지 제7,8,9,10,11 목록기재 부동산에 관한 같은법원 1977.10.14 접수 제36337호 1977.10.14 매매예약에 의한 소유권이전등기청구권보전을 위한 가등기의 회복등기절차를 (5) 피고 4는 위 각 말소된 가등기(제8목록 부동산 제외)의 회복등기에 대한 동의를 각 명한 제1심판결을 유지하였는바, 위 제1심판결과 원심판결에 별첨된 별지 부동산목록에 의하면, 제2목록 부동산은 경기도 화성군 ○○면 △△리 (지번 1 생략) 임야 18,843평방미터중 별지 제1도면표시 “아”부분 1정보[구 지번 (지번 1 생략) 임야 1정보] 제3목록 부동산은 위 같은 임야중 별지 제1도면표시 “나”부분 6단 8무보[구 지번 (지번 2 생략) 임야 6단 8무보], 제5목록 부동산은 (지번 1 생략) 임야 18,843평방미터중 별지 제1도면표시 “가”부분 2단 2무보[구 지번 (지번 3 생략) 임야2단 2무보], 제6목록 부동산은 위 같은면 □□리 (지번 4 생략) 과수원 23,669평방미터중 별지 제2도면표시 “마”부분 3,811평[구 지번 (지번 5 생략) 과수원 3,811평], 제7목록 부동산은 위 같은 임야중 별지 제2도면표시 “자”부분 3,349평 [구 지번 같은면 □□리 (지번 4 생략) 과수원 3,349평], 제9목록 부동산은 같은 면 □□리 (지번 6 생략) 전 7,692평방미터중 별지 제4도면표시 “사”부분 233평[구 지번 같은면 □□리 (지번 7 생략) 전 233평], 제10목록 부동산은 같은면 □□리 (지번 8 생략) 전 26,764평방미터중 별지 제3도면표시 “차”부분 3,260평[구 지번 같은면 □□리 (지번 8 생략) 전 3,260평], 제12목록 부동산은 같은면 □□리 (지번 6 생략) 전 7,692평방미터중 별지 제4도면표시 “카”부분 전 141평[구 지번 같은면 □□리 (지번 6 생략) 전 141평], 제13목록 부동산은 같은면 □□리 (지번 8 생략) 전 26,764평방미터중 별지 제3도면표시 “다”부분 전 3,361평[구 지번 같은면 □□리 (지번 9 생략) 전3,361평], 제14목록 부동산은 같은면 □□리 (지번 6 생략) 전 7,692평방미터중 별지 제4도면표시 “바”부분 1,953평[구 지번 같은면 □□리 (지번 10 생략) 전 1,953평], 제15목록 부동산은 같은면 □□리 (지번 8 생략) 전 26,764평방미터중 별지 제3도면표시 “라”부분 1,475평[구 지번 같은면 □□리 (지번 11 생략) 전 1,475평]으로 각 표시되어 있고 작성자 표시가 없는 일견 약도로 보이는 별지 제1내지 제4도면을 첨용하고 있다.

The plaintiff's claim of this case cited by the court below after the first instance court and the remand sought the implementation of the procedure of restoration registration of provisional registration to preserve the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership cancellation of real estate by dividing the above attached Form 2,3,5,6,7,9,10,10,12,13,14,15 into real estate and by dividing it, and according to the provisions of the Cadastral Act, all land shall be registered in the cadastral record by setting the lot number, land category, boundary or coordinate area as prescribed by the Cadastral Act, and the head of the Gun shall determine the parcel number by area as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and the boundary shall be determined by the competent authority, and if the head of the Gun intends to divide the land, he shall apply to the competent authority. Meanwhile, according to the provisions of Article 93 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, if the land Gap is divided into two parcels, and if the land is to be registered by dividing it into two or more parcels, it shall not be registered in the boundary number column, and so the land area of the land shall not be registered in the cadastral record.

The land of this case is merged after provisional registration for preserving the above claim for ownership transfer registration was cancelled, and it can be distinguished by the former lot number indication as shown in the real estate list as shown in the above attached Table. However, since there is no procedure to confirm the lot number and land register by the competent authority in the cadastral record, the former lot number cannot be indicated and registered by the registry official, it cannot be made. Thus, even if the former lot number exists, there is no difference in the object even if it is not specified.

In the end, there is a reason to discuss whether the object is not specified.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that it cannot be seen that the certificate of provisional registration right, termination certificate, and power of attorney, etc. attached at the time of the application for cancellation registration of provisional registration of the Plaintiff’s name of this case was a document which was duly prepared. In light of the records in the case of the court below, the above fact-finding of the court below is justified, and it cannot be said that there was a violation of the rules of evidence.

On the other hand, the court of final appeal, which received a return or transfer of a case by the court of final appeal, is bound by a factual and legal judgment as the reason for reversal, and the scope of the judgment is not limited to only one part as the reason for reversal of the judgment remanded. Thus, the court of appeal which received the return or transfer can proceed to trial according to the procedure of the court court and can present a new method of attack and defense. Therefore, if the certificate of provisional registration right owned by the plaintiff was attached to the provisional registration cancellation application of this case and the provisional registration is returned, the court of final appeal must state the completion of the registration in accordance with Article 67(2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act or the Minister of Court Administration's duplicate decision without examining and determining the plaintiff's claim of this case in this case without any indication of the completion of the registration, and the rejection of the plaintiff's claim of this case can not be accepted without reaching the legal principles of the Registration of Real Estate Act, and the court below which received the return of this case shall not accept the judgment's independent ground for reversal of the judgment.

3. As to the fourth ground for appeal:

일건기록에 의하면, 피고등 소송대리인은 이 사건 제1심 이래 소외 ◇사장이라는 사람이 원고로부터 차용금의 변제수령 또는 이 사건 가등기의 말소절차에 관하여 원고로부터 적법한 대리권을 위임받지 않았다고 하더라도 동인은 표현대리인으로서 그의 변제수령 또는 가등기말소절차는 유효하다고 주장하고 있음에도 불구하고 원심은 이 점에 관하여 아무런 심리판단을 하지 아니하였는바, 원심의 이 점에 관한 판단유탈은 판결결과에 영향이 있음이 명백하여 원심판결을 파기하지 아니하면 현저히 정의와 형평에 반한다고 인정되어 상고논지는 그 이유가 있다고 할 것이다.

4. Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed, and the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)