(a) The land to be traded, where the boundaries of the reality and the cadastral record are different;

(b) Any interested person under Article 38 (3) of the Cadastral Act;

(c) a case which does not constitute a person who is not obligated to approve the correction of boundary indications in the forestry map;

A. Where a parcel of land is registered with one parcel in the cadastral record, the location, lot number, land register, and boundary of the land are specified by this registration unless there are other special circumstances, and the scope of ownership is determined by the boundary on the public record regardless of the actual boundary. Barring special circumstances, the sale and purchase of this parcel of land shall be deemed to be subject to the sale and purchase of the land determined by the boundary on the cadastral record and by the cadastral record, irrespective of the actual boundary, regardless of the actual boundary. However, in the preparation of the cadastral map, because the boundary on the cadastral map was prepared differently from the true boundary due to technical errors, such as the error of selecting the points, etc., the boundary on the cadastral map is inconsistent with the actual boundary, and if there are special circumstances, such as the case where the parties, even if the land was sold before it was sold, have an intention to trade the land along the actual boundary, the boundary on the land

(b) An interested person under Article 38(3) of the Cadastral Act refers to all persons who have an interest in the correction of the registered matters, such as damage to the registered matters due to the correction of the registered matters, and is not limited to the owner of the land at the time of occurrence of an error in the registered matters, but to a person who acquires ownership by the purchase of the land before and after the purchase of the land is

(c) In cases of registration of subdivision of forest land, a person who is not a party to the application for subdivision registration or a party to the transaction of the forest subject to subdivision registration shall not be deemed to bear a legal obligation to accept the correction of boundary indication in the forestry map;

A. Article 3 of the Cadastral Act and Article 563(b) of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Lee Dong-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Attorney Lee Jae-in, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

New Games Tourism Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

Suwon District Court Decision 92Na4960 delivered on April 2, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. In light of the records, the court below's fact-finding is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence.

2. If a certain land is registered with one parcel of land on the cadastral record, the boundary of the land shall be specified as the registration, and as such, the scope of ownership of the land shall be determined by the boundary on the cadastral record, and the registration of ownership of the land shall also be determined by the boundary on the cadastral record, the ownership of only the land for which the boundary and the cadastral record are determined by the registration on the cadastral record, and the sale and purchase of the land shall be an intention of the parties to trade by the boundary on the cadastral record, regardless of the actual boundary, unless there are special circumstances, such as that the land shall be regarded as an object

Therefore, if a sales contract for a parcel of land was made, the boundary on the cadastral record and the land determined by the cadastral record, regardless of the actual boundary, shall be deemed to be the subject of the sale of the land, regardless of the actual boundary, unless there are special circumstances. However, in preparing the cadastral map, the boundary on the cadastral map was prepared differently from the true boundary line due to technical errors, such as the wrong selection of points, or in preparing the cadastral map, or installed a fence on the land on the land of one parcel, and sold it by de facto dividing it into the site of each building, and then making a subdivision registration, the boundary and the cadastral record are inconsistent with the actual boundary. However, even if the land was sold before the transfer, if there are special circumstances such as the case where the parties traded with the intention to sell and purchase the land as the actual boundary, the boundary on the land should be based on the actual boundary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Da490, Oct. 14, 196; 209Da49897, Feb. 197, 197).

3. When a landowner finds any error in the registered matters in the cadastral record, he may file an application with the competent authority for the correction thereof (Article 38(2) of the Cadastral Act), and when there is an interested party in the case of a change in the boundary and area due to a correction of the error, the landowner concerned may correct it with a written consent of the interested party or with the original copy of the written judgment capable of setting up against it (Article 38(3) of the Cadastral Act). The term "interested party" refers to all persons having an interest in the correction of the registered matters, such as damage caused to the registered matters due to the correction of the registered matters, and it is not limited to the landowner concerned at the time of the error in the registered matters, and it is a theory that the person who acquired ownership after the purchase

However, even if certain land is registered with one parcel in the cadastral record, its ownership is specified by this registration, unless there are other special circumstances, and the scope of its ownership is determined by the boundary regardless of the actual boundary, and barring any special circumstances, the sale and purchase of this land shall be deemed to be the object of sale and purchase of the land determined by the boundary on the cadastral record and the cadastral record, regardless of the actual boundary. However, in the preparation of the cadastral map, because the boundary on the cadastral record was prepared differently from the true boundary due to such technical error as selecting the starting point, the boundary on the cadastral record becomes inconsistent with the actual boundary. Even if the land was sold before the transfer, if there are special circumstances such as the parties having the intention to trade the land as de facto boundary, the boundary of the land should be determined by the actual boundary, and even if the Plaintiff’s allegation was made in the instant case, it shall be deemed that there were no special circumstances, such as the purchase and sale of the forest and field, which is the forest land, which is the land before the division, and the Defendant is obligated to purchase and sell the forest and field.

4. Accordingly, the court below's action that did not recognize the defendant's obligation to consent in the same purport is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles as to the scope of land ownership under Article 212 of the Civil Act and the legal principles as to correction of errors in registered matters under Article 38 (2) of the Cadastral Act, and the court below's failure to determine the motive or circumstance of the division into the forest of this case and whether the applicant for division is the applicant for division shall not be deemed to be an error of incomplete deliberation or omission of judgment affecting the conclusion of the judgment

In addition, the court below did not decide that the defendant did not have a duty to accept the correction of the boundary indication, but did not constitute an interested party under Article 38 (3) of the Cadastral Act. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles under Article 38 (3) of the Cadastral Act.

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)