(a) Methods of surveying for boundary restoration;

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below which acknowledged a boundary based on the result of surveying a newly installed Do points as the Do points, which are the basic points at the time of the registration of subdivision, are lost, in the case where a wide range of neighboring areas is inconsistent with the cadastral map; and

(a)the boundary restoration surveying conducted to restore a boundary on the cadastral map on the basis of a problem as to whether it is a boundary erosion and in order to restore the boundary on the cadastral map on the basis of the same method of surveying as at the time of registration; in conducting the boundary restoration surveying, according to the first method of surveying at the time of subdivision registration and on the basis of the basis

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below which acknowledged the boundary based on the result of surveying the newly installed Do points as the Do points, which are the basic points at the time of the partition registration, are lost, in the case where the wide range of neighboring areas are inconsistent with the cadastral map.

Article 25(2) of the Cadastral Act and Article 45 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 91Na8101 delivered on February 14, 1992

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

원심판결의 이유에 의하면, 원심은 거시증거에 의하여, 부산 서구 (주소 1 생략) 전 279평방미터(이하 이 사건 토지라고 한다)는 원고가 2691/2790 공유지분을 소유하고 있는 것으로 등기되어 있는 사실, 피고가 이 사건 토지상에 원심판결의 별지 제1도면표시 (가)부분 창고 일부 3.2평방미터와 같은 도면표시 ㅍ, ㅎ 을 이은 선상의 너비 0.2미터, 높이 2미터의 블록담장, 같은 도면표시 ㄹ, ㅎ 을 이은 선상의 벽돌조 기둥과 너비 1미터 슬래브지붕으로 된 대문 등을 설치하고, 위 (가), (나)부분 대지 27평방미터를 점유하고 있는 사실을 인정한 후 특단의 사정이 없는 한 피고는 원고에게 위 창고 등을 철거하고, 위 대지 27평방미터를 인도할 의무가 있다고 한 다음, 이 사건 토지를 비롯한 일대의 토지는 지적도상의 경계와 현실의 경계가 일치하지 아니하는 지적불부합지로서 기지점(현실경계선)에 의하여 측량할 경우 피고 소유의 주택이 원고 소유의 이 사건 토지를 침범하지 아니한다는 피고의 주장에 대하여, 원·피고 소유의 토지가 있는 그 일대 토지가 지적도상의 경계와 현실의 경계가 일치하지 아니하는 이른바 지적불부합지인 사실, 기지점(지상경계선)에 의하여 측량할 경우 원심판결의 별지 제2도면표시와 같이 피고 소유의 주택이 이 사건 토지를 침범하지 아니하는 것으로 나타나는 사실을 인정할 수 있으나, 현재 위 토지들에 대하여는 지적불부합지로 고시된 바가 없을뿐 아니라 위 일대 토지는 지적도상의 경계는 이상이 없는데 위 토지상에 건물을 지으면서 현실의 경계측량을 할 때 기초점을 잘못잡아 현실의 경계가 지적도상의 경계보다 동쪽으로 이동되어 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 이러한 경우 현실의 경계를 소유권의 범위로 하기로 하였다는 등의 특별한 사정이 없는 한 소유권의 범위는 최초 분필의 경계인 지적도상의 경계에 따라 확정지어져야 할 것이라는 이유로 피고의 주장을 배척하였다.

However, if a certain land is registered as a piece of land on the cadastral record, the location, lot number, land category, land category, and boundary of the land are consistent with the boundary on the first cadastral map, but the boundary on the original cadastral map was restored due to the destruction, etc. of the cadastral map, the boundary on the re-established cadastral map was erroneous, or the boundary on the cadastral map was drawn up differently from the true cadastral map due to technical errors, such as the error of selecting the basis point in determining the boundary on the cadastral map, etc. Accordingly, the scope of ownership of the land shall be determined by the boundary on the cadastral record (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 8Da19712, Dec. 26, 190; 92Da5287, Apr. 13, 1993).

However, as in this case, the boundary restoration surveying conducted to restore the boundary on the cadastral map in order to restore the boundary on the land as the problem is whether the boundary is violated or not, should be done by the same method as the surveying method at the time of registration (Article 45 of the Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Act). In the above boundary restoration surveying, first, the surveying method at the time of partition registration shall be followed and second, the basis point at

According to the records, the surveying method at the time of partition registration of the land in this case is the surveying method, and its basic point is the Do point (the result of Nonparty 1’s appraisal by the head of Busan Seo-gu, the court of first instance). The appraisal result of Nonparty 1’s above, which was adopted by the court below, is that the Do point as the basis point at the time of partition registration of the land in this case is lost and new Do point is the basis point, which is newly installed as the Do point at the time of partition registration. However, in ordinary cases, if the basic point at the time of partition registration cannot be found due to changes in the land survey, the boundary restoration can be performed by surveying the Do point as the basis point at the time of partition registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Da15266, Jul. 23, 191; 200Da152840, Jun. 28, 200).

Therefore, the court below should have determined the boundary of the land in this case after examining the causes of such phenomenon with regard to the land in this case where the boundary between the reality and the cadastral map are different, comparing the results of the survey conducted based on the Doz points which were the basis of the time of partition registration with the newly installed Doz points based on the same levelz points (it is not clear in the records whether there is any existing Doz points in the Dozz points established at the time of partition registration of the land in this case). Nevertheless, without examining this point, the court below erred in the incomplete hearing in adopting only the result of the survey conducted based on only the newly installed Doz points (the result of the appraisal conducted by Nonparty 2 of the court of first instance) among the appraisal results of the above non-party 1 (the same shall also apply to the appraisal results of the non-party 1 without examining this point, which affected the conclusion

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

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)