Even if the competent cadastral authority refuses the above correction because the neighboring land owner did not err in the indication of the land cadastre area and rather the boundary line in the cadastral map is erroneous, the pertinent land owner may file a lawsuit seeking the declaration of consent with respect to a correction that does not require a consent of the neighboring land owner, etc., in the de facto necessity to clarify that the area of the land cadastre was erroneous. However, the pertinent land owner may not file a lawsuit seeking the declaration of consent with respect to a correction that does not require a consent of the neighboring land owner.

Article 84(1) of the Act on Land Survey, Waterway Survey and Cadastral Records (hereinafter “Land Survey and Waterway Survey Act”) provides that “A landowner may apply for the correction thereof to the competent cadastral authority when he/she finds that a mistake has occurred in the matters registered in the cadastral record.” Article 84(3) of the same Act provides that “Where the boundary of an adjacent land is changed due to a correction under paragraph (1), he/she shall submit any of the following documents to the competent cadastral authority:

In the event of a discrepancy between the area and the area indicated on the land cadastre based on the boundary line in the cadastral map, even if the boundary line in the cadastral map is corrected based on the area indicated on the boundary line in the cadastral map, such correction does not constitute “case where the boundary of adjoining land is altered” under Article 84(3) of the Land Survey and Waterway Survey Act. In such case, the relevant landowner does not need to submit a written consent, etc. from the neighboring land owner for the aforementioned correction, and there is no legal interest in claiming consent for the above correction. Even if the competent cadastral authority refuses the above correction because there is no error in the indication of the land cadastre and there is no error in the indication of the land cadastre and the boundary line in the cadastral map, and even if the competent cadastral authority refuses the above correction, the relevant landowner may file a lawsuit for confirmation of boundary, lawsuit for confirmation of land ownership, etc. against the neighboring land owner in the de facto need to clarify that the area indicated on the land cadastre was erroneous, but it cannot be said that the landowner in itself is entitled to file a lawsuit seeking consent for correction, etc.

According to the records, the land of this case owned by the plaintiffs and the land of this case and the land of this case owned by the defendants, which is divided into approximately 307 square meters ( Address 1 omitted) and approximately 172 square meters, which are all owned by the defendants, and the land of this case is classified into the Daejeon Pungdong ( Address 2 omitted) and the land of this case. The land of this case is indicated as 255 square meters in the land cadastre, but the land cadastre of this case is indicated as 255 square meters in the land cadastre, but the area based on the boundary line in the cadastral map is equal to 276 square meters, and the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit of this case against the defendants seeking approval for the correction.

In light of the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lawsuit in this case is seeking a declaration of consent with respect to a correction that does not require a consent from the neighboring land owner, and in itself, it is unlawful as it does not have any interest in the lawsuit. Nevertheless, the lawsuit in this case is deemed legitimate. Furthermore, the judgment below which accepted the Plaintiff’s claim is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the interest in the lawsuit seeking a declaration of consent with respect to

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed. Since this case is sufficient for the court to directly render a judgment, the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit are borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)