1. The part of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendant Jeonju is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff against the defendant B.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The boundary line of 29 square meters in Jeonjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City and D road of 1018 square meters in possession of Defendant Jeonju-si, a claim against Defendant Jeonju-si, which is the Plaintiff’s ownership, is a line linking 1,70 square meters in a straight line.

However, the defendant Jeonju-si is blicking on a ship which connects 1, 2, 6, 7, and 1 of the annexed drawings in sequence, and is used as a pedestrian road.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks against Defendant Jeonju-si to determine the boundary of the two lot numbers of land as a line connecting the attached drawing 1, 7 to a straight line, and seek the removal of road packaging installed on the ground of 4m2 of land owned by the Plaintiff against Defendant Jeonju-si and the delivery of the said land.

B. Defendant B, as the owner of the Seojin-gu E large scale 12 square meters in Jeondong-gu, Jeonju-si, and attempted to install a fence by removing the atmosphere in which the boundary was achieved between the Plaintiff’s C large scale 29 square meters and the boundary. Accordingly, the Plaintiff installed fences on the boundary line between C and E parcel number.

However, Defendant B unilaterally removed pents without the Plaintiff’s consent, which constitutes a tort and sought compensation for 643,000 won for pents installation costs.

2. Determination

A. (i) In a case where the boundary under public law is established clearly based on the cadastral map for the confirmation of boundary, seeking confirmation of the boundary in addition to seeking delivery of the site in question on the ground that the other party actually invaded the boundary, cannot be a legitimate land boundary confirmation lawsuit, and is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

(See Supreme Court Decision 90Da12649 delivered on April 9, 1991). Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, it cannot be said that the boundary between the Plaintiff’s land and the land owned by the Defendant Jeonju-si was changed due to the construction of the road at Jeonju-si, and thus, the claim for confirmation of boundary is unlawful as there is no benefit

Dor removed and delivered by Defendant Jeonju, according to the results of the cadastral survey, shall pack the road on the D parcel number.