Article 370 of the Criminal Code shall be the meaning of the prescribed accounts

The purpose of Article 370 of the Criminal Act is to protect private rights and maintain social order by ensuring the stability of legal relationship with respect to land boundaries. Thus, even though the boundary marks are not in conformity with the boundary line in the substance, if they have been generally approved in the past, or if they are determined by the express or implied agreement of the interested parties, such boundary marks shall fall under the balance sheet prescribed in the above Article of the Criminal Act, and on the contrary, if one of the parties asserts that the existing boundary does not coincide with the true status of rights and obligations and unilaterally executes a boundary surveying and set up a balance sheet above, it shall not fall under the balance sheet prescribed in the above Article of the Criminal Act, even if one of the parties claims that it is appropriate for the actual relation of rights, by disregarding the existing boundary,

Article 370 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 75Do2564 Decided May 25, 1976

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 85No376 delivered on April 24, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

The purpose of Article 370 of the Criminal Act is to protect private rights and maintain social order by ensuring the stability of legal relationship with respect to land boundaries. Thus, even though the boundary marks are not in conformity with the boundary line in the substance, if they have been generally approved in the past or have been determined by the explicit or implied agreement of the interested parties, such boundary marks shall be deemed to fall under the boundary table prescribed in the above Article of the Criminal Act. On the contrary, even if one of the parties unilaterally and unilaterally make a boundary surveying in disregarding the existing boundary and installing a boundary table on the ground that the existing boundary does not coincide with the true status of rights, such boundary marks shall not fall under the boundary table prescribed in the above Article of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 75Do2564, May 25, 1976).

According to the facts established by the court below in this case, on January 24, 1964, the defendant set a new boundary line different from the existing boundary line, and sold part of the 94-1 forest land in Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, which he owned (the land lot number divided shall be 94-5) to the Non-Indicted Party, by dividing it into the boundary line immediately after planting trees on the boundary line, thereby making the land owned by the defendant as the boundary between the land owned by the defendant and the present road on the present road. The above existing boundary by the Non-Indicted Party Jong Jong-gun, which is the child of the present road, on April 12, 1984, is not consistent with the true right condition, and the defendant unilaterally performed a boundary boundary boundary boundary boundary boundary boundary boundary boundary, and thus, it cannot be said that the defendant, who installed the horse posts of this case arbitrarily on the line, removed the right to do so, and it does not constitute a violation of the legal principles as to the previous boundary boundary of the parties.

Therefore, the appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)