1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 8, 2004, the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, requested the Defendant to conduct a boundary survey on the instant land. On July 9, 2009, the Plaintiff newly constructed a reinforced concrete structure general restaurant, which is a single-story building, on the instant land after obtaining a building permit on July 9, 2009.

B. On November 9, 2009, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to conduct a survey on the current status once more for the approval of the use of the above building, and the result of the survey also was the same and obtained the approval of the use from the Ma-Gun Office on November 23, 2009.

C. On December 4, 2009, the Plaintiff reported the extension work on the second floor of the building above, and completed the construction work on or around December 8, 2009, beginning with the construction work on or around December 8, 2009.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) d.

D, the owner of the land adjacent to the instant land, asserting that the Defendant’s survey was wrong and that the instant building invadeds his own land, and filed a request for review of the legality of the cadastral survey with the Gangwon-do Regional Cadastral Committee. On August 19, 2010, the said Committee decided that it is right to determine the survey result from the fence line installed by D to approximately 0.5 meters away from the fence line installed by D to the instant land.

On December 16, 2010, D filed a request for reexamination with the Central Cadastral Committee, and the said Committee dismissed the request for reexamination on the ground that the resolution by the Local Cadastral Committee of Gangwon-do is appropriate.

E. Ultimately, the instant building exceeded the instant land, and was constructed over approximately 11 cm away from the boundary of the said land.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number), the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the facts acknowledged before the establishment of liability for damages, the Defendant erred in conducting a boundary survey on March 8, 2004, and thereby, deemed that the Plaintiff’s instant building was influenced with C’s neighboring land.