Whether a lawsuit for the confirmation of boundaries against co-litigants is a requisite co-litigants (affirmative)

Since the boundary of land has a close relationship with the land ownership and it should be jointly determined for all the owners of the adjoining land, one or both of the adjoining land belongs to two or more co-owners, in order to institute a lawsuit for confirmation of boundary, all the co-owners shall jointly institute a lawsuit or institute a lawsuit against all the co-owners.

Article 264 of the Civil Act, Article 63 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Hong Hong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Dongsung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 97Na40468 delivered on January 23, 1998

Of the instant lawsuits, the part of the claim for boundary confirmation is dismissed.

Among the lawsuits of this case, the removal of retaining walls and the request for the delivery of land are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The boundary line of the same 298 square meters and the same 212 square meters, which is owned by the Plaintiff and the same 298 square meters and that of the same 212 square meters, which are owned by the Defendant, shall be determined by the line connected each point in the attached Form 1, 3, 4, and 5. The Defendant shall remove a retaining wall constructed on the ground of the same 298 square meters and according to the above boundary line, on the ground of the same 1, 3, 4, 5, 5, 1, 1, 5, 1, 5, 1, 5, 5, 1, 5, 1, 5, 5, 1, and 5,000 square meters in the line connected each point in sequence to the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was divided in accordance with the base line of the axis, which constituted the boundaries of both sites at the time, from the same site on July 5, 1962, the same (number 2 omitted) and the same (number 2 omitted) of the same (number 2 omitted) as that owned by the Defendant, which is owned by the Plaintiff. Since the current cadastral map indicated differently from such division criteria was erroneous, the line connecting each point of the attached Table 1 No. 1, 3, 4, and 5 in sequence shall be determined by the boundary of the above two sites, and accordingly, the line connecting each point of the said separate map No. 1, 3, 4, 5, 1, 1, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 1, 5, 5, 5, 1, 5, 1, 5, 1, 5, 1, 5, 1, 5, 5, 1.

2. Determination on the part of the claim for boundary confirmation

First of all, the part of the boundary confirmation claim is examined.

According to the statement No. 1-1 of the above (number 1 omitted), it can be recognized that the above (number 1 omitted) large to 298 square meters are registered as co-ownership by the plaintiff and non-party 1. Therefore, the above land is presumed to be co-ownership by the plaintiff and non-party 1.

However, since the boundary of the land is closely related to the land ownership and it should be jointly determined for all the owners of the adjoining land, one or both of the co-owners should file a lawsuit seeking the confirmation of boundary in the case where one or both of the adjoining land belongs to the co-ownership, it should be deemed that all the co-owners jointly file a lawsuit or file a lawsuit against all the co-owners." Therefore, the part of the claim for confirmation of boundary of this case filed by the Plaintiff, one of the co

3. Determination on the removal of a retaining wall and the request for delivery of a site

A. When certain land is registered in cadastral records under the Cadastral Act, the location, lot number, land category, land register, and boundary of the land are specified by this registration unless there are other special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da31180, May 12, 1992).

B. However, the following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the descriptions of evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8-1, 2, 11, and 12 as well as the appraisal results of the appraiser Nos. 3-1, 3-2, 4, 6, 7, and 8-2, and the appraisal results of the appraiser Nos. 11, 12, and 2, and

On July 5, 1962, the cadastral map as to the above (number 1 omitted) site was subdivided from the above (number 3 omitted) and re-preparationd four times on the basis of the cadastral map recorded on July 5, 1962. However, since the cadastral map was newly constructed according to the storage conditions, such as the material, dampness, temperature, etc., in the cadastral map computerization work, the cadastral authority in charge of cadastral records calculated the newly constructed amount of drawings, etc. on December 1, 1994. The cadastral map boundary line of the cadastral map as to the above site was successively connected to the cadastral map No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 1 of the attached Table 2 (this is the same as evidence No. 4, evidence No. 7-2, evidence No. 8-1, 2, and 2). However, the retaining wall installed by the defendant was successively connected to each of the above building lot numbers owned by the defendant.

Meanwhile, contrary to the above recognition, the entries of Gap evidence No. 13, each appraisal result of non-party 3, and the fact-finding result of non-party 3 of this court, which are contrary to the above recognition, are surveying the boundary based on the cadastral map which was closed before the error according to the new construction of the cadastral map was corrected, and are not employed.

C. Therefore, the part on the Plaintiff’s retaining wall removal and the request for the delivery of a site on the premise that the retaining wall constructed by the Defendant was constructed on the ground above (number 1 omitted) owned by the Plaintiff is owned by the Plaintiff, and that the retaining wall constructed by the Defendant was built on the ground is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuits in this case, the part of the claim for confirmation of boundary is dismissed as it is unlawful, and the removal of retaining walls and the claim for delivery of a site are dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost, as per Disposition.

Judges Noh Jae-in