logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2020.04.09 2017다228014
토지인도
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The boundary restoration survey conducted to restore a boundary on the cadastral map as a matter of whether a boundary is invaded, must be conducted in the same way as the survey conducted at the time of registration, so the survey method at the time of first registration shall be followed, second, based on the reference point at the time of survey, and there is no accuracy because the survey method or technology at the time of registration has not developed;

Even if the boundary restoration survey is conducted, more detailed survey method is needed by the method of survey at the time of registration.

(2) No person may conduct a survey immediately by means of such method.

In principle, in case where a sectional survey is conducted by the plane table survey based on the base point at the time of registration of land, the boundary restoration survey shall be conducted based on the base point at the time of registration. However, if it is impossible to conduct the boundary restoration survey based on the base point at the time of registration because it was not possible to find the base point at the time of registration, the boundary restoration survey can be conducted based on the base point around the conditions similar to the time of registration based on the unit point at the time of registration. If it is impossible to conduct the boundary restoration survey due to changes in the situation of the relevant land, the boundary restoration survey is conducted based on the basis of the basic survey.

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment on October 10, 2003, the lower court recognized the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the adopted evidence, and determined the facts as follows: ① the value of the land owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) 985 square meters prior to Sejong Special Self-Governing City and E-lease 531 square meters owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant land”).

arrow