In case where the interested parties such as the owners of the lands adjacent to the land, the boundary of which is prepared differently from the actual boundary on the public cadastral book, have agreed to make the actual boundary of the land coincide with the boundary on the public cadastral book, whether the spatial boundary of the relevant land is specified by the boundary on the public

In a case where a parcel of land is registered with one parcel in the cadastral record under the Cadastral Act, the boundary of the land shall be specified by this registration unless there are other special circumstances: Provided, That in a case where there are special circumstances such as a mistake in selecting points in the cadastral record due to technical errors, such as a mistake in choosing points in preparing the cadastral record, etc., the boundary of the land shall be determined by the actual boundary, instead of the cadastral record. However, if interested parties such as the owners of lands adjacent to the land agree to make the actual boundary of the land coincide with the boundary on the cadastral record, the spatial scope of the land shall be specified at least by the boundary on the cadastral record.

Article 3 of the Cadastral Act, Articles 105 and 212 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 95Da54761 delivered on April 23, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1571) Supreme Court Decision 95Da5597, 55603 delivered on July 9, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2447) Supreme Court Decision 97Da42823 delivered on June 26, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 198Ha, 1968) Supreme Court Decision 98Da15446 delivered on May 26, 200 (Gong200Ha, 1489)

Plaintiff 1 et al. (Attorneys Lee Jong-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee)

Jeonju-si (Attorney Jeon Jae-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Jeonju District Court Decision 2004Na2475 Decided April 7, 2006

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a case where a certain land is registered with one parcel in the cadastral record under the Cadastral Act, the boundary of the land shall be specified by this registration unless there are other special circumstances. However, in a case where there are special circumstances such as a mistake in choosing points in the cadastral record due to a technical error, such as a mistake in choosing points, etc., in preparing the cadastral record, the boundary of the land shall be determined by the actual boundary, instead of the cadastral record (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da15446, May 26, 2000). If the interested parties such as the owner of the land adjacent to the land agree to make the actual boundary coincide with the boundary line in the cadastral record, the spatial boundary of the land shall be at least be determined by the boundary in the cadastral record.

2. The court below acknowledged the facts in its decision, such as the fact that the forestry map of this case was inconsistent with the registered area in the forestry map due to the error in surveying, etc., and determined that the plaintiffs' claim of this case was groundless on the ground that there was no evidence to support that the location of the forest in this case owned by the defendant is located in the forest in this case, and that the forest in this case was erroneously prepared, and thus, the object of correction is merely nothing more than the object of correction, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiffs corrected the area identical with the forest map with the public land map with the consent of the owner of the land adjacent to the forest in this case. The plaintiffs' spatial scope and area of the forest in this case cannot be deemed to coincide with the indication in the forestry map.

3. However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below.

The facts duly recognized by the lower court, in particular, the head of Jeonju-si: (a) was aware of the inconsistency between the registered area and the forestry map on February 20, 191; (b) was designated as the land subject to correction of registered matters in the cadastral record with the purport that the area should be reverted to the area calculated on the cadastral record on February 20, 191; (c) was indicated in the forest register with the owner on the same day; and (d) was notified the Defendant of an application for correction of registered matters with the required documents, as the said land was subject to correction; and (e) the Plaintiffs, who acquired the instant forest on January 7, 200, did not file an application for correction of the area of the forest area to the head of Kujin-si-si-si, 200 to the extent that the area of the instant forest area was reduced to 1,326 square meters on the current forest map; and (e) was not subject to correction of the area of the forest area to 97 square meters on March 15, 200000.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the spatial scope of the forest of this case cannot be specified by the boundary line of the forest of this case, since the forestry map of this case was erroneously prepared by mistake. Thus, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by misapprehending the legal principles on spatial specification of land, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The plaintiffs' allegation in the grounds of appeal is with merit.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)