A. In Jeju-si, Category C is marked with Map 43, 2, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 43, 43, 43, 2, 37, 38, 39, 40.

A. The main issue of this part is the Jeju-do land owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) and D land adjacent thereto (hereinafter “Defendant’s D land”) corresponds to so-called cadastral inconsistency, where the boundary and reality in the cadastral map are continuously inconsistent with each other. The Plaintiff seeks to remove the building owned by the Defendant, the boundary of which is infringed on the boundary based on the boundary in the cadastral map, and transfer the relevant part of the land. On the other hand, the Defendant argues to the effect that, considering the purport of the Special Act on Cadastral Resurvey enacted around September 16, 201, the boundary should be determined on the basis of the boundary of the stone fence, which is a local custom in the Jeju-do area.

B. According to the legal principles established by the Supreme Court precedents, etc. on the standard of judgment on the above issues, it cannot be deemed that there was a technical error in the cadastral map preparation of certain land solely on the ground that the land is inconsistent with the cadastral map, and in a case where there is no proof that there was an error in the cadastral map preparation, the boundary of the land should be determined based on the result of the

(2) Article 7(2) of the Special Act on Cadastral Resurvey, which is alleged by the Defendant, provides that “A boundary may be established by reflecting the boundaries based on real boundaries and local customs in certain cases, notwithstanding the above principle.” However, as stipulated in Article 7(2) of the same Act, this is limited to cases where a cadastral resurvey project is implemented after obtaining consent from at least 2/3 of the total number of land owners in a certain area and owners of land equivalent to at least 2/3 of the area of land, and through certain procedures, after obtaining consent from owners of land, as stipulated in Article 7(2) of the same Act. Thus, in cases where both parties recognize that the aforementioned procedure has not been carried out, as seen in the instant case, the aforementioned principle is followed.