[1] In a case where the boundary in the cadastral map is established differently from the true boundary due to a technical error, the standard for determining the boundary of the land

[2] In a case where it is difficult to determine the existence of an objective boundary, whether the court can establish a boundary by preparation, etc. (affirmative)

[1] When certain land is registered as one parcel of land in the cadastral record under the Cadastral Act, the boundary of the land shall be specified by this registration unless there are other special circumstances. However, in a case where there are special circumstances, such as a mistake in selecting points in the cadastral map, and where there are some special circumstances, such as erroneous preparation of a boundary in the cadastral map differently from the true boundary line, the boundary of the land shall be determined by the actual boundary without being based on the cadastral map.

[2] In a case where it is difficult to determine the location of an objective boundary at any time due to lack of evidence as to the boundary of land, the court may form and determine a boundary according to cooking, etc.

[1] Article 3 of the Cadastral Act, Article 212 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 1 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Da54761 delivered on April 23, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1571), Supreme Court Decision 95Da5597, 55603 delivered on July 9, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2447), Supreme Court Decision 97Da42823 delivered on June 26, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 1968), Supreme Court Decision 98Da15446 delivered on May 26, 200 (Gong200Ha, 1489)

Freeboard (Attorney Jin-cil et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

For stuffing

Lee-ok (Attorney Noh Jae-in, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Chuncheon District Court Decision 93Da1233 delivered on October 25, 1996

Supreme Court Decision 2000Da54925 Delivered on December 22, 2000

1. The judgment below is modified as follows.

The boundary line of land No. 1 and land No. 2 listed in the attached Form No. 2, owned by the acquiring participant, listed in the attached Form No. 2, shall be determined with a straight line connected to the same point as the point indicated in the same drawing No. 2. 3.2 meters away from 3.0 points indicated in the attached Form No. 2, which is the south end of the third building listed in the attached Form No. 2, indicated in the attached Table No. 2. 3. 4.2 meters away from the point indicated in the remaining end of the building.

2. The total costs of a lawsuit shall be borne by each party.

The text of paragraph (1) is as follows.

The judgment of the court below shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Judgment on the main defense of this case

The Plaintiff asserts that the claim of this case by the Plaintiff is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit, since the acquisition by prescription or acquisition by prescription for acquisition of the registry has been completed, since the boundary between the Plaintiff and the assignee has been occupied in peace and openly for at least 20 years from the former owner of the acquiring intervenor to the Defendant, and thus, the claim of this case by the Plaintiff is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

However, a lawsuit seeking confirmation of land boundary is a lawsuit seeking confirmation of boundary of neighboring land, and it does not aim at confirming the scope of ownership or substantive rights of the land. Thus, whether an acquiring intervenor acquired by prescription the part of land boundary between the plaintiff and the acquiring intervenor is not subject to deliberation in the land boundary confirmation lawsuit in this case, and the above assertion by the acquiring intervenor is without merit.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. Comprehensively considering the evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2-2, 3-1, 3-2, 1-4, 11, and 12-1, 11-2, and 12-1, and the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of on-site inspection by the court below and this court, the land Nos. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the land No. 1 of this case") listed in the separate sheet was owned by the defendant, and the land Nos. 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as "the land No. 2 and the building of this case") listed in the separate sheet were owned by the defendant. The defendant sold the land No. 2 and building No. 2 of this case to the acquiring intervenor on Sep. 6, 1997 and sold each transfer registration of ownership in the name of the acquiring intervenor on Oct. 7, 1997, the land No. 1 of this case and the land No. 2 of this case were continuously adjacent to the plaintiff and the intervenor's building No. 2 of this case could be confirmed after the boundary of this case.

(b) Methods of determining boundaries;

(1) If a parcel of land is registered with one parcel of land in the cadastral record under the Cadastral Act, the boundary of the land shall be specified by this registration unless there are other special circumstances. However, in the preparation of the cadastral map, where there are special circumstances, such as a mistake in choosing points, due to a technical error, such as a mistake in choosing points, where the boundary in the cadastral map has been made differently from the true boundary, the boundary of the land shall be determined by the actual boundary, instead of the cadastral map (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da54761, Apr. 23, 196). Thus, first, we examine whether the boundary of the land 1 and 2 of this case shall be determined by the cadastral map or by the actual boundary.

(2) In full view of the results of the response of the head of the branch office of Gangnam-si to the fact inquiry by the court on March 31, 1997 and the purport of the reply of the court on April 14, 1997 to the fact inquiry, the land category of the above land was originally registered in the cadastral record on November 5, 1959, and the land category of the 312-29-3 of the 312-3 of the 312-3 of the 319-14 of the 317-14 of the 19-29-14 of the 317-29-29-29-29-29 of the 312-12-29-1 of the 197-12-2 of the 197-2-12-3 of the 197-12-2 of the 31-314 of the 197-14 of the 31-24 of the above land cadastral map.

However, according to the result of appraisal of the appraiser of this court's appraisal of the model, it is reasonable to view that the land was not connected with the above 1st of July 14, 1993 by the appraiser of this court's appraisal order, and the result of the response of the head of the branch office of the Korea Cadastral Corporation to the appraisal supplementation of the original court on June 14, 1994, the result of the response of the court's appraisal of the original court's appraisal on June 1, 1996, which was the result of the notification of the cadastral map No. 29 of the cadastral map of this case's cadastral map and the cadastral map No. 4 of this case's cadastral map of this case's cadastral map and the cadastral map No. 29 of this case's cadastral map of this case's cadastral map were no more than 3th of May 12 and Oct. 20, 197, the cadastral map of this case's cadastral map was no more than 4th of the cadastral map of this case's cadastral map.

(3) However, the actual boundary of the land No. 1 and No. 2 of this case cannot be determined by the evidence submitted by the plaintiff and the acquiring intervenor, as well as the actual boundary of the land No. 1 and No. 2 of this case. However, if it is difficult for the plaintiff and the acquiring intervenor to confirm the location of the land objectively at any time due to lack of evidence as to the boundary of the land, the court can determine the boundary in accordance with the reasoning of the court. Thus, considering the dispute surrounding the land No. 1 and No. 2 of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant and the acquiring intervenor, the current status of possession, and all other circumstances shown in the oral argument, the boundary of the land No. 1 and No. 2 of this case should be determined with the same point as the land No. 3. 4. 2 meters away from the other end of the building No. 2 of this case, and the road No. 0. 20. 2 meters away from the road No. 3 of this case's drawings.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the boundary of the land No. 1 and the land No. 2 of this case shall be determined as above, and the judgment of the court below is judged as per Disposition, since the assignee succeeds to the status of the defendant and the judgment of the court below is different from this conclusion, since the assignee succeeds to the status of the defendant.

Judges Jeong Il-sung (Presiding Judge) Death penalty;