1. The Defendant’s KRW 21,310,00 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from April 9, 2016 to September 15, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the land B (including C land that was combined on April 27, 201; hereinafter “instant land”) with the wife population in Permitted-si.

The defendant is a public corporation established under the Framework Act on National Spatial Data Infrastructure for cadastral surveying, etc.

B. On October 21, 2010, the Defendant conducted a boundary restoration survey on the instant land at the Plaintiff’s request.

(hereinafter “instant survey”). C.

Based on the survey result, the Plaintiff constructed the second floor building on the instant land with a building permit granted on November 10, 2010 (hereinafter “instant building”) and completed the registration of initial ownership on April 25, 201 with the approval of use on April 19, 201 for the instant building.

On August 12, 2011, the defendant found that there was an error in the survey of this case that was conducted before, after being examined by the request for the boundary restoration surveying from the owner of D land adjacent to the neighboring land.

Since February 24, 2012, the defendant's survey on the above D land was conducted on February 24, 2012.

As a result, the boundary of the instant land was modified to 2.5m square meters, as shown in the separate sheet. E. The width between the instant building where the instant land parking lot was located and the boundary between the north east east east east east was reduced to 2.5m due to the change of land boundary (based on recognition). [No dispute exists, Gap’s 1 through 4, 12, 13, 14 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply).

- Each entry of Eul evidence 1 to 4, Gap evidence 21, 22, Eul evidence 6, 7, and 8, Eul's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion lies in the construction of the instant building on the basis of the boundary of the instant land, trusting the outcome of the instant survey, and based on the boundary of the instant land. After that, it was revealed that any error was found in the instant survey, thereby resulting in a change in land boundary

Therefore, the defendant shall compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the above fraudulent survey.