beta
Text
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim regarding 1,683 square meters and AC woodland 50390 square meters shall be dismissed in entirety.
2.
Reasons
1. We examine the legitimacy of each of the above claims, ex officio, as to the legitimacy of claims relating to AB land and AC among the instant claims.
Article 84(1) of the Act on the Establishment, Management, etc. of Spatial Data (hereinafter “Spatial Data Act”) provides that “A landowner may apply for the correction thereof to the competent cadastral authority when he/she finds that any error has occurred in the matters registered in the cadastral record,” and Article 84(3) of the same Act provides that “Where the boundary of an adjacent land is changed due to a correction under paragraph (1), a written consent from the owner of the adjacent land or a written final and conclusive judgment that may stand up against it shall be submitted
According to the provisions of the Spatial Data Act, a request for correction of the registered matters in the cadastral record cannot be filed with respect to land which is not owned by the owner of the land, and the lawsuit against the owner of the land seeking consent for correction of the boundary is unlawful as there is no benefit
In addition, it is unlawful that there is no benefit of protection of rights against a non-resident who is not a neighboring land owner whose boundary is changed following the revision of the boundary of one's own land.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2016Da1793, Jun. 28, 2016; 90Meu15966, Nov. 9, 1990; etc.). However, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the owners of land AB are parties to the lawsuit between the Defendants, other than the Defendant’s closing association, and the Defendant’s net W. The owners of land AC are the Defendant’s closing association. The part claiming for consent to the Plaintiff’s application for correction of registered matters in the Plaintiff’s cadastral record on these land is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights.
Furthermore, as to the application for the correction of the boundary of AD land, the Defendants and the Defendant W litigants expressed their consent.