Sick Office (Law Firm Masung, Attorneys Ha Young-kak et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Yang Young-ju et al. (Law Firm Young-jin, Attorneys Jeong Yong-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Abandon;

December 15, 2005

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2001Da36492 Delivered on August 17, 2004

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment against the defendant Yang Young-ju, Yellow-mar, Magazin, Magazin and Republic of Korea

The boundary between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s 15-3 forest land and 298 square meters in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan City and the Defendant Yang Young-gu, and the same 145-1 large 330 square meters in the same building owned by the Plaintiff, the same 144-16 large 16 square meters in the same building owned by the Defendant Jeon Young-gu, and the same 145-137 large 274 square meters in the same building owned by the Defendant Park Young-gu, and the boundary between the 15-16 square meters in the same city owned by the Defendant Republic of Korea and the 186 square meters in the same city owned by the Defendant Republic of Korea shall be determined in the line attached Table 2, 1,6,5,

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The judgment of the court of first instance, which is owned by the plaintiff, shall be revoked. The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's ownership of the same 145-1 square meters and 330 square meters wide, 145-1 square meters wide, 330 square meters wide, Lee Jae-dong, Dong-dong, and the ownership of the defendant Yang Young-gu, Seoul, and the ownership of the defendant Yang Young-gu, and the fact that the defendant (appointed parties, "the defendant Lee Young-dong"), the Appointed-do, the Selection-do, the name of the selected, the head of the office, the head of the office, the Kim Chang-dong, the head of the office, the head of the office, the Kim Jong-dong, the head of the office of first instance, and the fact that the ownership of the defendant Jeon Young-dong, owned by the defendant Jeon-dong, are determined by connecting each 145-5 square meters wide and 51 square meters wide,7,8,114,161,15

1. Basic facts

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be recognized by adding the whole purport of the arguments made by the panel of the appraiser Go-nam in the first instance trial, with each of 1-1, 2, 8, 1-1, 2, 1-5, 3-1 or 4, 3-1 or 4, 5-1-4, 2-1 or 5-7, 6-2, 7, 8-1 or 6, 1-6, 9, 12-1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 13-18, 2-16, and 16.

A. The Plaintiff’s 15-3 forest land and 298 square meters in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan City (hereinafter “the instant forest”) are the Plaintiff’s 145-1 forest and 330 square meters in the same manner, Defendant Yang Young-gu’s 145-1 forest and the same 144-16 forest and 166 square meters in the same manner, Defendant Yellow-gu, Defendant Yellow-gu, the same 145-137 square meters in the same manner, and the same 15-16 forest and 186 square meters in the same manner, respectively.

B. The Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 145-5 large 551 square meters are co-owned by Defendant Kim Jae-gu, Lee Jae-chul, Lee Jong-ok, Lee Jin-ok, Lee Jae-ok, Lee In-ok, Lee In-bok, Lee In-bok, Selection-man, Park Chang-chul, Park Chang-hee, Kim Chang-hee, Kim Chang-hee, Kim Chang-hee, and Lee Jin-hee. A part of the shares of Defendant Kim Jae-dong were transferred to Kim Jong-chul on April 10, 202, and on December 18, 2002, respectively (hereinafter referred to as “each land”).

C. The forest land of this case was divided into six parts of the 15 forest land in mountain, 145-1, and 145-5 land was divided into one part of the 14th unit in mountain, and the land was divided into one part of the 14th unit in mountain. On November 12, 1916, Japan-In-U.S. The land of this case before the aforementioned subdivision was assessed on November 12, 1916, and each forestry map and the forest land register were prepared and implemented.

D. On November 12, 1916, when the C&M was assessed on the 14th part (300 square meters and 14th part of mountain), the C&M was registered on the land cadastre and cadastral map as the result of completion of reclamation on February 1, 1925 (T&M 8th 14th 14th 14th 14th 1925). On January 6, 1925, C&M was again registered on the land cadastre and cadastral map as the result of completion of reclamation on January 6, 1919 (T&M 8th 145-1th 398th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 1).

마. 산 15 임야(2정 6단)는 1931(소화 6). 8. 10. 산 15-1 임야 1단 7무, 산 15-2 임야 1단 7무, 이 사건 임야 3무(≒298㎡≒3무×30평×3.3058), 산 15-4 임야 2정 2단 3무로 각 분할되어 임야대장과 1/6,000 축척의 임야도에 등록되었다{임야대장상 산 15 임야의 면적과 그로부터 분할된 산 15-1~4 임야의 면적 합계는 일치한다(2정 6단 = 1단 7무 + 1단 7무 + 3무 + 2정 2단 3무)}.

F. 145-4 The land was divided into the land on July 13, 1963, from the land on 145-1, from the land on 144-16, from the land on 5 May 144-6, 1966 (the land on 144-6 was divided into the forest on 15 mountain land) and from the land on 145-137, from each of the land on 145-1 on 14 July 14, 1972, and registered in the cadastral map on 1/1,200 accumulated.

사. 이 사건 임야는 별지 (1) 1/6,000 축척의 임야도(‘위 임야도’라 한다)상에 ㅊ¹² 부분으로 표시되어 있는데, 그 면적은 별지 (2) 확대도(‘위 확대도’라 한다) 표시와 같이 합계 701㎡이고, 그 주변의 토지가 등록된 1/1,200 축척의 지적도(‘위 지적도’라 한다)에는 이 사건 임야가 별지 (3) 측량성과도(‘위 측량성과도’라 한다) 중 산 15-3 임야 부분으로 표시되어 있는데, 그 면적은 위 측량성과도 표시와 같이 241㎡이다.

H. In the above cadastral map, the boundary line of the forest land of this case and each of the land owned by the Defendants is indicated as the line connected each point of 2,1,6,5, and 4 in the order of the above extension. However, when the above cadastral map is linked with the cadastral map by expanding the above cadastral map on a scale of 1/1,200 as the above cadastral map on a scale of 1/1,200, the forest land of this case and each of the above lands are combined with the cadastral map, the total of 568 square meters of the parts of the "A, B, L, F, andg" connected each point of 2,1,6,5,7,8,9,10,10,112,13,14,14,14,14,14,15,16, and 2, such as the above extension is also connected.

2. The assertion;

The Plaintiff: (a) The scope of land ownership is determined by the boundary of the cadastral record, and the specific boundary is determined by the boundary of the cadastral map or forestry map; (b) the said cadastral map drawn up on a scale of 1/6,000 with respect to the instant forest is expanded to a scale of 1/1,200; and (c) comparison with the cadastral map as to each of the said lands owned by the Defendants, is included within the boundary of the instant forest land indicated in the forestry map with a scale of 568 square meters, among each of the said lands owned by the Defendants, in which a scale of 568 square meters is expanded; and (d) this is because, on February 1, 1925, the boundary of the instant forest was affected by an error when the land on February 14, 1925 is converted from the land on a cadastral map with a scale of 14 square meters and that of the said land on a cadastral map, thereby, the boundary between the instant forest and each of the said lands owned by the Defendants,

3. Determination as to the lawsuit against Defendant Kim Jae-chul, Lee Jae-chul, Park Jong-ok, Lee Jae-in, Lee Jae-in, and Noon

A. The boundary of the land is a matter of determining the scope and limit of the ownership of the land, and it is necessary to jointly determine the boundary between all the owners of the adjoining land related to the boundary. Thus, in a case where either party of the adjoining land belongs to several persons, a lawsuit seeking the confirmation of the boundary is an inherent and necessary co-litigation that requires that only all the relevant co-owners jointly file a lawsuit and the other party shall jointly file a lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da24207, Jun. 26, 2001).

B. The fact that part of the shares of Defendant Kim Jae-hwan on the land, which is the land adjacent to the instant forest land, transferred to the appointed virtue and the appointed scam from April 10, 2002 to December 18, 2002, during the instant lawsuit, from April 10, 2002 to December 18, 2002, is deemed to be in accordance with the above 1.B. The fact that part of the shares of Defendant Kim Jae-hwan on the land, which is the land adjacent to the instant forest land, were transferred to the appointed virtue and the appointed virtue and the scamscams, which were partially succeeded to

4. Determination as to the claim against the Defendant Yang Young-ju, Yellow-gu, Park Jong-gu, and Korea

A. Lawful of the lawsuit

(1) The Defendants asserted to the effect that the instant lawsuit seeking implementation is unlawful, since the inconsistency between the forest land of this case and the neighboring land owned by the said Defendants is merely the subject of the revision of the registered matters registered in the cadastral record, in a case where the forest land of this case and the surrounding land owned by the said Defendants overlap with the aforementioned forestry map and the cadastral map

(2) A lawsuit seeking the determination of land boundary is a lawsuit seeking the determination of boundary by a trial in a case where the boundary of an adjacent land is substantially unclear, and the need for the protection of rights is recognized only because there is a dispute between the owners because the boundary of an adjacent land is unclear, unlike the lawsuit seeking the confirmation of the scope of land ownership (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da41792, Nov. 23, 1993, 41808).

(3) The above forestry map and the above cadastral map are superior to the above cadastral map, so long as there is a dispute between the plaintiff and the above defendants as to the boundary between the forest land of this case owned by the plaintiff and the neighboring land owned by the above defendants, the lawsuit of this case is lawful as the need for the protection of rights

B. Determination

(1) Where a real estate is registered as one parcel of real estate in the cadastral record under the Cadastral Act, the parcel number, category, land register, and boundary of the real estate shall be specified by the registration of the cadastral record unless there are special circumstances, such as “in preparing the cadastral map in the process of registration conversion, the boundary in the cadastral map was prepared differently from the true boundary line due to a technical error,” etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da49473, Mar. 13, 1998).

(2) The forest of this case and the boundary of each land owned by the said Defendants are different from each other in the above forestry map and the above forestry map, and the fact that the land location of 145-1 land registration conversion from mountain 14 land is different from that of mountain 14 land when it was based on the above forestry map and the above forestry map is as seen earlier.

(3) However, the aforementioned circumstances are as follows: ① the number of land indicated in the instant forestry map was 14 square meters and 15 square meters was registered on November 12, 1916; the land was divided from 14 February 1, 1925, which was 145-1 square meters before the instant forest was subdivided; ② the said forestry map is marked as 701 square meters in the land cadastral map; ② the area of the instant forest was indicated as 30 square meters in the said forestry map; ② the land area of the instant land was 15-1 square meters and 4 square meters in the cadastral map was 5 square meters away from the said cadastral map; ② the land area of the instant land was 15-1 to 4 square meters in the cadastral map was 15 square meters and thus, the land area was 15 square meters in the cadastral map and 14-14 square meters in the cadastral map divided into 36 square meters in the forest and fields, respectively, and the forest land area was 163 square meters in the cadastral map divided into 14-16.

(4) Accordingly, as indicated in the above cadastral map, the boundary of the instant forest land owned by the Plaintiff and each land owned by the said Defendants shall be determined by the line which connects each point of 2,1,6,5, and 4 each point of the said extension.

5. Conclusion

The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant Kim Jae-chul, Lee Jae-jo, Lee Jong-ok, Lee Jae-ok, Lee Jae-ok, Lee Jae-in, Lee Jae-in, and Lee Dong-chul shall be dismissed as unlawful. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Yang Young-ju, Yang Jong-ju, Park Jong-ok, Park Jae-in, and the plaintiff's claim against the Republic of Korea shall be determined as above. However, among the judgment of the court of first instance which partly different the conclusion, the part against the defendant Yang Young-ju, Jeon-ju,

[Attachment List of Appointed]

Judges Park Tae-dong (Presiding Judge) Lee Ho-hunon