1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except where the court added "2. Additional Judgment" below, and thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination (as to the assertion on the conversion into the possession of another owner)

A. The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that: (a) around 201, the Defendant’s Republic of Korea filed an application for surveying and appraisal with the Korea Land Information Corporation in around 201; (b) around that time, the Defendant’s possession of the portion of “B” in the attached Form No. 5, 25, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 6, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the attached Form No. 13, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 16, 17, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 of the attached Form No. 698 square meters prior to Gangseo-si; and (c) the Defendant’s possession of the portion “C” was converted into another owner’s possession.

B. In light of the results of the fact-finding inquiry into the Korea Land Information Corporation in this Court and the purport of the entire arguments, I requested a boundary restoration survey on March 1, 201, but the fact that the field survey was not conducted on April 4, 2011 after having requested a boundary restoration survey on the land in this case.

However, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant’s family members had applied for the survey as above and revoked, as well as that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the land adjacent to the instant land was owned by another person with knowledge as part of the land owned by himself at the time of the commencement of possession.

Even if the existence of a mutual dispute as a result of either a cadastral survey or a cadastral survey revealed the existence of a boundary, such circumstance alone does not change the possession into the possession of a third party (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da4366, 43673, Sept. 13, 2013). Thus, the Defendant’s land adjacent to the instant case and its ground, contrary to the Plaintiff’s assertion.