(a) The need for the significance and protection of rights of a suit for the determination of land boundary;

(b) The method by which the court determines the boundaries in a lawsuit demanding the determination of land boundary;

A. A lawsuit seeking the determination of land boundary is a lawsuit seeking the determination of the boundary by a trial in a case where the boundary of an adjacent land is virtually unclear, and the need for the protection of rights is recognized only because there is a dispute between the owners because the boundary of an adjacent land is unclear, unlike the lawsuit seeking the confirmation of the scope of land ownership.

(b) In a lawsuit for confirmation of land boundary, a court needs to clearly indicate whether a boundary in the cadastral map falls under any part of the reality by such means as selecting a certain point within the land owned by the original and the Defendant as a basis point and identifying the location in accordance with direction and distance, etc. on the basis thereof, and it is not bound by the boundary line asserted by both parties, but must determine the boundary on its own, as deemed true.

Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act (Institution of Lawsuit)

A. Supreme Court Decision 70Da579 delivered on June 30, 1970 (No. 18B citizen 106) 92Da44503 delivered on October 8, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 3043)

Plaintiff

Defendant Kim In-bok, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 93Na7142, 7159 (Consolidated) Decided July 1, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Determination on each of the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 3 by the defendant's attorney

A. A lawsuit seeking the determination of land boundary is a lawsuit seeking the determination of the boundary by a trial in a case where the boundary of neighboring land is virtually unclear, and the need for the protection of rights is recognized only because there is a dispute between the owners because the boundary of neighboring land is unclear, unlike the lawsuit seeking the confirmation of the scope of land ownership.

The court below held that since the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case and the land No. 3 of this case owned by the plaintiff are adjacent to each other, but only used as a passage without a facility indicating a boundary, and its boundary is unclear, the plaintiff and the defendant, the owner of the adjacent land, as the plaintiff and the defendant requested a boundary surveying to each of their own survey, design office, or the Korea Cadastral Survey Corporation, but the result is different, and there is a dispute over several occasions due to the boundary confirmation, and thus, the plaintiff can seek the confirmation of the land boundary against the defendant. If the facts are legally determined by the court below, the above determination by the court below is just in accordance with the legal principles as seen above, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interest of confirmation as in the theory of lawsuit.

B. In addition, according to the records, the contents of the claim in this case do not differ from the boundary in the cadastral map, but from the boundary in the cadastral map, as to which part of the real land is located, the boundary is determined and changed due to the dispute between the original and the defendant. Therefore, the decisions of the party members in the cadastral map regarding the cases where the boundary in the cadastral map differs from the boundary in the reality and the boundary in the reality are inappropriate to be invoked in this case.

C. In the above case, it is necessary for the court to clearly indicate whether the boundary in the cadastral map falls under any part of reality by selecting a certain point in the land owned by the plaintiff and the defendant as a basic point and specifying the location according to the direction and distance, etc. on the basis thereof. Thus, in this case where land owned by the plaintiff and the defendant is used only as a passage route without any specific building, the court below's determination that the straight line located in a certain direction at a certain distance from the northwest side of the building owned by the defendant on the land owned by the defendant is determined as a boundary, based on the outer wall of the building owned by the defendant on the land owned by the defendant, shall not be deemed to be erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interest in confirmation by determining the boundary on the basis of the ground building which is destroyed or lost at any time

D. Ultimately, we cannot accept the lower judgment’s argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interest of confirmation or by misapprehending the Supreme Court’s precedents.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 4

In short, the theory of the lawsuit is in short, since the boundary recognized by the non-party's appraisal result and the boundary claimed by the defendant are not less than 20 cm from the actual distance, it is within the scope of the permissible error as stipulated in Article 44 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Act and Article 34 (4) 4 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Act, and the above appraiser's appraisal result cannot be deemed just, but the court below determined the boundary only by the appraisal result of the above appraiser. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the permitted error in the boundary survey under the Cadastral Act or failing to properly examine it, and by misapprehending the rules of evidence.

However, the court is required to determine the boundaries of the parties under the conditions as recognized by the parties not bound by both parties' boundary lines and as true. Examining and comparing the relevant evidence with the records, it is reasonable for the court below to determine the boundaries of the land Nos. 1 and 2, and the land No. 3, owned by the defendant, based on the appraisal results, etc. of the above appraiser, as above, and it is not reasonable for the court below to determine the boundaries of the land No. 1 and 3, which are owned by the plaintiff, as above, and there is no error of law as to the theory of lawsuit in the judgment of the court below. Thus, there is no reason for the argument of the court below (It is clear that

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)