1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 26, 2001, the Plaintiff’s wife B acquired ownership as an auction on the land of 5,370 square meters in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si (hereinafter “land before division”).

B. Korea’s Army Diplomatic Units occupied part of the land before subdivision and used it as a site for military installations.

With respect to the boundary of military facilities of land before subdivision, the Korea Land Corporation conducted a survey on the current status of land (the first measurement) on November 12, 2002 at the request of the Plaintiff on November 22, 2002, the current status of land (the second measurement) on the request of the Plaintiff on February 17, 2003, the current status and boundary restoration (the third measurement) at the request of the above unit on September 1, 2003, and the land division on September 1, 2003 at the request of the above unit on September 30, 203. On September 30, 2003, the land before subdivision was confirmed to be occupied by the military unit on September 1, 203, the land before subdivision was divided into C2,863 square meters, and 113 square meters of forest and forest as public waters, and the remaining part of G2,338 square meters of forest and forest (hereinafter referred to as “the land in this case”).

On December 7, 2004, the Republic of Korea accepted C forest land of 2,863 square meters, which is land after the division.

C. However, the Defendant’s request to the Korea Cadastral Corporation for the construction of a road in the vicinity of the instant land to the Korea Cadastral Corporation on July 19, 2004, and the Plaintiff’s survey on July 19, 2004 alleged that it was a subdivision survey. However, considering the entries in B 1-3, the fact inquiry results on the Korea Land Information Corporation Kimpo branch of the Republic of Korea in this court, and the overall purport of pleadings, the fifth survey appears to have been a simple survey to specify the road site (the land was divided according to the results after the fifth survey) and the indication “division survey” as shown in A 1 appears to be a clerical error.

(5) The part of the instant land, other than the instant land, was designated as a road site. However, according to the result of the first or fourth survey, the part determined as the instant land was determined as the result of the said fifth survey.