1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

The court's explanation of this case is as follows: "2.2. judgment" in Part 20 of the judgment of the court of first instance; "3.3. conclusion" in Part 3; "4.4. conclusion" in Part 3; and "3.3." in Part 3, the following determination is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; therefore, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Parts]

3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The Defendants asserted that, in light of the development of satellite surveying techniques and the precision of the boundaries, the cadastral map in the past cadastral record is inconsistent with the actual status, and thus, the result of the court of the first instance that part of the buildings owned by the Defendants are constructed on the ground of the instant land and the result of the request for complementary appraisal by the court of first instance that part of the buildings owned by the Defendants are not trustable.

However, the result of the court of first instance's request for survey, appraisal and supplementary appraisal was surveyed on a scale of 1/1200 using the Bara-ray equipment. In particular, the result of the survey conducted on December 11, 2014 by the method of boundary restoration survey presented by the Defendants, and there is no big difference in the result of survey, appraisal and supplementary appraisal.

In addition, there are other errors in the method of survey appraisal and complementary appraisal.

There is no ground to believe that the discretion of the appraiser has been involved.

Therefore, it is difficult to see that the result of survey appraisal and supplementary appraisal is different from the actual situation, and there is no evidence to recognize it differently.

The defendants' assertion in this part is without merit.

B. The Defendants asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff’s claim in this case constitutes an abuse of rights when proposing a mediation proposal to the Plaintiff.

However, as long as the Defendants’ buildings are in conflict with the boundary of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, the Defendants were revealed as a result of the survey appraisal and complementary appraisal.