1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the land indicated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the annexed list 1 shall be modified as follows.

1. The scope of this court’s trial at the first instance court’s request for cancellation of the decision on the boundary of the cadastral resurvey with respect to each land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “D land”), “E land listed in Paragraph 2, and “F land” listed in Paragraph 3), and the part of the claim for cancellation with respect to F land is dismissed. The claim for cancellation with respect to D and E was accepted.

However, since only the defendant appealed against this part of the judgment against the defendant, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim of D and E in the judgment of the first instance.

2. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 1, 2014, the Changwon-gu Seoul Special Act on Cadastral Resurvey (amended by Act No. 14800, Apr. 18, 2017; hereinafter “former Cadastral Resurvey”) designated an area B (hereinafter “instant project district”) as a cadastral resurvey project district pursuant to Articles 7 and 8 of the former Special Act on Cadastral Resurvey (amended by Act No. 14800, Oct. 19, 2017; hereinafter “former Cadastral Resurvey”).

(Public Notice C of Changwon-si). (b)

The Plaintiff is the owner of D, E, and F land located in the instant project district.

C. On August 25, 2016, the Defendant, as the competent cadastral authority of the instant project district (Article 2 subparag. 5 of the former Cadastral Resurvey Act, and Article 2 subparag. 18 of the Spatial Data Construction and Management Act), determined the boundary of the instant project district (hereinafter “instant boundary determination”) based on the actual boundary of land pursuant to Article 14(1)1 of the former Cadastral Resurvey Act, following a resolution by the Boundary Determination Committee under Article 16 of the same Act. As a result, the boundary of D, E, and F land owned by the Plaintiff was changed differently from the existing one.

Around April 2017, the Plaintiff became aware of the instant boundary decision. Around May 11, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an objection to the instant boundary decision pursuant to Article 17 of the former Cadastral Resurvey Act, but the Defendant did not dismiss the instant boundary decision on June 19, 2017 following a resolution by the Boundary Determination Committee.