[1] The method of determining the boundary of the land partitioned and registered in accordance with the urban planning line for the implementation of the urban planning project

[2] The method of surveying the boundary restoration

[3] The case holding that the method of boundary restoration on the ground surface of the land should be based on the boundary restoration survey under the Cadastral Act, not on the public survey under the Land Survey Act, in case where there is an issue as to whether the land partitioned or registered for an urban planning project bordered

[1] The boundary of land registered in the cadastral record shall be determined by the indication of the cadastral record, unless there are special circumstances such as that the boundary line on the cadastral record was prepared differently from the true boundary line due to technical errors, and thus, it shall be determined by the indication of the cadastral record, and it shall not be deemed to have been based on the result of the specification survey of the urban planning line itself even in a case where the land was divided and registered in accordance

[2] According to Articles 25(2)4 and 28 of the former Cadastral Act (amended by Act No. 4869 of Jan. 5, 1995), and Article 45 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a boundary restoration survey for restoring a boundary indicated in the cadastral record on the ground surface shall be conducted by the same method as that at the time of registration, where only the cadastral technicians stipulated in the Cadastral Act are able to restore the boundary on the ground surface. As such, the first method of surveying at the time of registration shall be followed, and the second standard point at the time of surveying shall be based on the standard point at the time of registration. Although the method of surveying or technology at the time of registration has not been developed and there is a more detailed method of surveying, it shall not be conducted immediately by such method.

[3] The case holding that the method of boundary restoration on the ground surface of the land should be based on the boundary restoration survey under the Cadastral Act, not on the public survey under the Land Survey Act, in case where there is an issue as to whether the land partitioned or registered for an urban planning project is violated

[1] Article 3 of the former Cadastral Act (amended by Act No. 4869 of Jan. 5, 1995), Article 212 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 25(2) and 28 of the former Cadastral Act (amended by Act No. 4869 of Jan. 5, 1995), Article 45 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14568 of Apr. 6, 1995) / [3] Articles 25(2) and 28 of the former Cadastral Act (amended by Act No. 4869 of Jan. 5, 1995), Article 45 of the former Cadastral Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14568 of Apr. 6, 1995), Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Survey Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Da5597, 55603 decided Jul. 9, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2447), Supreme Court Decision 97Da42823 decided Jun. 26, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 1968), Supreme Court Decision 98Da15446 decided May 26, 200 (Gong200Ha, 1489) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da58490, 58506 decided Apr. 21, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1934), Supreme Court Decision 96Da42451 decided Feb. 14, 1997 (Gong197, 795Sang, 195) and Supreme Court Decision 36Da38497 decided Mar. 16, 1985)

Plaintiff 1 and four others (Attorneys Kim Jin-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant) who are the litigation taking over by the deceased Nonparty 1 and the deceased Nonparty 2

Busan Metropolitan City captain-gun (Attorney Geum-dong, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 98Na9516 delivered on June 25, 1999

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The boundary of land registered in the cadastral record is specified by the registration, barring special circumstances, such as that the boundary line on the cadastral record was prepared differently from the true boundary line due to technical errors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da15446, May 26, 2000). Therefore, it is determined by the indication on the cadastral record (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da15446, May 26, 200). This cannot be deemed to have been based on the result of the

Meanwhile, according to Articles 25(2)4 and 28 of the former Cadastral Act (amended by Act No. 4869, Jan. 5, 1995; hereinafter the same), and Article 45 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where a boundary restoration survey to restore a boundary indicated in the cadastral record on the ground is conducted only by the cadastral technicians prescribed in the Cadastral Act, and should be conducted by the same method as that at the time of registration. Thus, the first method of survey shall be based on the reference point at the time of registration, and the second method of survey shall be based on the reference point at the time of registration, even if there is no accuracy due to the development of the survey method or technology at the time of registration, it shall be based on the method at the time of registration, and it shall not be conducted immediately due to such method (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da34283, Mar. 27, 198).

According to the records, under the condition that three lots of land in this case, which are their ownership, have already been registered by subdivision and subdivision for the urban planning project in this case, the plaintiffs filed a claim in this case on the ground that the boundary was infringed by the construction of the urban planning road in this case under the premise that they had the area stated in the land cadastre and registry. According to the legal principles as seen earlier, whether the boundary of the land in this case was infringed by the construction of the urban planning road in this case, shall be determined on the basis of the result of the boundary on the three lots of land in this case under the Cadastral Act, which is actually restored by the method of surveying at the time of registration.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the boundary of the part adjacent to the urban planning road of this case among the three parcels of land in this case is determined by the defendant's urban planning line itself, and that the specification survey on the surface of the ground should be based on the public survey under the Land Survey Act. The court below's decision that the above construction is being done against the boundary of the three parcels of land in this case on the basis of the appraisal report prepared as a public survey under the Land Survey Act, such as the result of the public survey under the Land Survey Act by Non-party 3, a surveying engineer, among the appraisers of the court below, and that the court below's decision of the court of first instance which affirmed the plaintiffs' claim by rejecting all the evidence against the recognition of the court below, including the result of the cadastral survey under the Cadastral Act by Non-party 4, a cadastral engineer, and the result

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)