[1] A registration book for part of one parcel of land without the procedure for confirmation of parcel number and land register by the competent authority in the cadastral record

[2] Whether a landowner may assert his/her own ownership without undergoing the boundary confirmation procedure where the indication on the cadastral record changes due to the merger and division of land (affirmative)

[3] The case holding that where one parcel of land is divided into several lots and registered in the cadastral record was entirely destroyed, and the cadastral record was restored only to one parcel of land before the division, the previous owner of each divided land may file a lawsuit seeking confirmation of ownership or cancellation of ownership transfer registration with respect to a part of the parcel of land before the division, with the specific degree that the boundary of the previous divided land can be divided into the cadastral record, as it is specific to the extent that the former divided land can be divided into the cadastral record

[4] Whether a true owner may directly seek implementation of the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership based on the restoration of the true name in addition to seeking cancellation of the registration against the current registered titleholder (affirmative)

[1] In order to register one parcel of land by dividing it into two or more parcels of land, the competent authority in the cadastral record shall first conduct a cadastral survey, and accordingly, it is possible to register only 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. Thus, if it is impossible to implement this procedure in the competent authority in the cadastral record only with the indication of land attached to the judgment, it is impossible to distinguish each parcel of land by the former parcel number display, even if the relevant land is combined and thus it is possible to distinguish each parcel of land by the competent authority in the cadastral record, there is no difference

[2] 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 and division does not lose or there is a change in the legal relationship with the land. As long as the land owned by the landowner can be identified, there is no difficulty in claiming ownership without restoring the boundary of the former parcel number on the cadastral record or undergoing the boundary confirmation procedure by the boundary confirmation lawsuit.

[3] The case holding that where one parcel of land is divided into several lots and registered in the cadastral record was entirely destroyed, and the cadastral record was restored only to one parcel of land before the division, the previous owner of each divided land may file a lawsuit seeking confirmation of ownership or cancellation of ownership transfer registration with respect to a part of the parcel of land before the division, with the specific degree that the boundary of the previous divided land can be divided into the cadastral record, as it is specific to the extent that the former divided land can be divided into the cadastral record

[4] It is also permitted to directly seek implementation of the procedure for registration of ownership transfer based on the restoration of real name, in addition to seeking cancellation of the registration against the present registered titleholder based on ownership by means of restoring the title of the registration, which was registered under one’s own name or the predecessor’s name or acquired the ownership by the law.

[1] Article 3 of the Cadastral Act, Article 93 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 186 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 15 and 96 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 186 of the Civil Act / [3] Article 3 of the Cadastral Act, Articles 76 and 93 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 186 of the Civil Act / [4] Article 186 of the

[1] Supreme Court Decision 83Meu1135, 1136 decided Mar. 27, 1984 (Gong1984, 699) Supreme Court Decision 95Da14794 decided Jul. 30, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2630) Supreme Court Decision 97Da2993 decided Jun. 24, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2278) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1810 decided Apr. 12, 198 (Gong198, 835) / [4] Supreme Court en banc Decision 2000Da36484 decided Aug. 21, 200 (Gong201Ha, 2036) / [209Hah, 2036] Supreme Court en banc Decision 209Da94790 decided Sept. 29, 2005

Plaintiff 1 and five others

Defendant 1 and one other (Law Firm Future, Attorneys Park Jong-woo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 99Na87508 delivered on February 14, 2001

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Summary of the judgment of the court below

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence adopted.

It was originally determined in the name of the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 4, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, the non-party 1, the non-party 4, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, the non-party 4, the non-party 1, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, the non-party 5, the non-party 6, the non-party 5, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, the non-party 4, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, the non-party 1, the non-party 5, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, the non-party 1, the non-party 5, the non-party 1, the non-party 4, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the forest land.

On May 10, 1947, Nonparty 4 sold the ownership transfer registration to Nonparty 5 on May 10, 1947. Nonparty 5 completed the registration on June 11, 194 on June 11, 194, with respect to the forest land 3-1, 3-1, 3-5, 8-5, 5, 5-1, 5-1, 5-1, 5-1, 5-1, 743.

However, due to the incident of June 25, the official cadastral records and the register, etc. kept in the single registry office, the Gun office, and the Myeon office were all dismissed. The administrative agency restored the official cadastral records of this forest to the single cadastral record on October 10, 1980, and the agency restored the same cadastral record on the forest where the forest was located before the partition as at the time of the circumstance based on the forest cost map at the time of the assessment, and restored the same to the forest (location omitted) which is the forest before the partition. The forest is 73,686 square meters and the forest is 64,66

Afterward, Nonparty 6, the inheritor of Nonparty 3, as the defendant on September 24, 1996, filed a lawsuit claiming ownership confirmation with the Seoul District Court No. 96 Mam2 (Case No. 96 Mam23,686 m2. 4. Forest land No. 64,661 m2. It is the fact that Nonparty 6, the inheritor of Nonparty 3, as the defendant on September 24, 1996, confirmed that the ownership of the forest No. 73,68 m2 is non-party 6, and submitted the Official Gazette at the time of incorporation into the reserved forest, a separate investigation report on the use of private forest, etc. as evidence, and accordingly, upon winning the judgment of the court below on April 22, 1997, the registration of ownership preservation was completed on July 10, 1997 with the Government Branch of Seoul District Court No. 31131, Jun. 24, 1996.

On the other hand, the non-party 5 purchased from non-party 4 and owned the registration of transfer of ownership on 3-1, 00, 3-5, 1-1, 13, 56, 57, 23-34, 85, 35-5, and 1, in order to each of the items indicated in the annexed drawings of the judgment below, the non-party 5 connected 1-13, 56, 57, 23-34, 85, 35-5, and 1-1, 5, 500, 500, 4-1, 500, 500, 54, 53, 52, 50, 49, 48, 7184-5, and 500,000,000,000 each of them (hereinafter referred to as "non-party 2, 94,000).

B. Based on such factual basis, the lower court determined that, insofar as the registration of ownership transfer in the Defendants’ name was made on the forest land in question Nos. 1 and 2, the registration of ownership transfer is null and void by the registration of ownership transfer from the person who has already lost ownership, and accordingly, the Plaintiffs, who inherited the ownership of the forest in question No. 1 and 2 from Nonparty 5 in the form of 1/6 shares, were entitled to seek direct action for the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the restoration of the true title in relation to the forest in question No. 1 and

2. The judgment of this Court

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

In light of the records, the court below held that the non-party 4 was transferred to non-party 5 on May 10, 1947, the non-party 5 completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 11, 194 and the non-party 5 completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same 3-1 4 g, 3-5 g, 5 g, 3-5 g, 8 g, 8 g, 45 g, 5 g, 5 g, 45 g, 5 g, 5 g, 45 g, 5 g, 5 g, 5 g, 1, 45 g, 1-10 g, 1-13, 56, 57 g, 54 g, 75 g, 95 g, g, 45 g, g, 51 g, g, 54 g, g.

The grounds of appeal pointing out this issue are rejected.

B. Ground of appeal No. 1

In order to register one parcel of land by dividing it into two or more parcels of land, the competent authority in the cadastral record shall first conduct a cadastral survey, and accordingly registration shall be made only after the parcel number, land category, boundary, or coordinate and area of each parcel of land is determined, and registration in the cadastral record shall be made. If it is impossible to implement such procedures in the competent authority in the cadastral record only by the indication of land attached to the judgment, the land is combined, and even if it is impossible to distinguish each parcel of land by the former parcel number indication, there is no difference between the former parcel number and the fact that the land is not specified unless there is a procedure for confirmation of parcel number, cadastral record, etc. by the competent authority in the cadastral record. Thus, the former parcel number cannot be registered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Meu135, 1136, Mar. 27, 1984; 95Da14794, Jul. 30, 196).

Therefore, even in a case where one parcel of land was divided into several lots and registered in the cadastral record was entirely destroyed after the cadastral record was entirely destroyed, the competent authority in the cadastral record was restored to the land of several lots of land divided before the division, and only one parcel of land was restored to the land before the division, the former owner of each land divided shall be deemed to have asserted and exercised his/her ownership by filing a lawsuit seeking confirmation of ownership or cancellation of ownership transfer registration with respect to a part of the parcel of land before the subdivision, as the cadastral record is specified to the extent that the boundary of the previous divided land, which is the ownership, can be divided into the cadastral record into the cadastral record.

Under such premise, the lower court’s determination that the portion of the first and second disputing forest owned by the Plaintiffs was specified respectively is erroneous in misapprehending the legal doctrine on the specification of land and thus ordering the registration of ownership transfer for land that does not exist legally.

The grounds of appeal pointing out this issue are rejected.

C. Regarding ground of appeal No. 4

It is also permitted to directly seek the implementation of the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership based on the restoration of real name in addition to seeking the cancellation of the registration against the present registered titleholder by means of the restoration of the title of the registration by the true owner who has registered the ownership under his or the name of the deceased or who has acquired the ownership under the law (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 9Da37894, Sept. 20, 200).

In the case of this case, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Nonparty 5 was made on the same 3-1. 3-5. 3-1. 3-1. 4. 4. 4. The registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Nonparty 5 was entirely destroyed, and the cadastral record was restored to 3. 4. 4. 4. , and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendants was made on the same 4-1. 3-1. 3-1. 3-1. 3-1. 3-5. 3. 4. 4. 4. 4. 5. 5. 5. 1. 3-1. 1. 5. 1. 5. 1. 5. 1. 1. 1. 1. 5. 1. 1. 1. 2. 2. 2. 4. 2. 3 of the name of the Defendants in the name of forest and forest for the same reasons.

In the judgment of the court below to the same purport, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the right to claim ownership transfer registration based on the restoration of title of registration.

The grounds of appeal pointing out this issue are also rejected.

3. 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 Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)