토지인도
All appeals by the Defendants against the Plaintiffs are dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.
the purport and purpose of the claim;
1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the Defendants’ assertion, and therefore, it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion
A. The Defendants’ assertion that the instant land constitutes a cadastral inconsistency, and thus, ought to conduct a survey for the restoration of boundaries after correcting the cadastral boundary, area, etc.
The result of the measurement entrustment conducted by the court of first instance does not coincide with the actual status of the land in this case.
According to the survey drawings conducted by the court of first instance, Defendant C’s boundary line of the Plaintiff’s building on the ground of this case alleged to the effect that the line connecting the same building and the building site boundary Nos. 2 and 3 of the attached appraisal map is “road line,” but the said line indicates the boundary line of the Plaintiff’s land.
There is little gap between the construction line of the Plaintiff building and the road according to the layout map at the time of construction of the building, there is a distance of 1.2 meters between the building line and the road, and the actual situation photographs also have an interval of 1.2 meters between the building line and the road of the Plaintiff building.
In other words, the plaintiff's building is further constructed towards the defendant's land, and the result of the survey commission by the court of first instance is about 1.2m from the west to the west of the boundary point.
Rather, the plaintiffs violated the land of Defendant C.
The result of the survey conducted by the court of first instance is unfair as having set a boundary point at will (in the course of conducting a boundary survey around June 2018, the Plaintiff’s husband H was marked at the point that the Plaintiff’s husband H wants, the Plaintiff’s survey conducted around July 4, 2018 and the survey conducted around July 4, 2018, did not set a proper boundary point, and the survey conducted at the court of first instance according to the aforementioned designated boundary point at will). (b) The Defendants’ aforementioned assertion cannot be accepted.
The reasons are as follows.