Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The answer B 1,247.9 was divided into C through D land on December 18, 1959 (hereinafter “instant division”).
B. On April 4, 2005, the Plaintiff purchased a F 635 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and G 1,187 square meters from E, and the said G land was combined with the instant land on April 15, 2005, and the area on the registry was 1,882 square meters.
C. On May 26, 2015, Buan-gun registered the instant land as the land subject to revision on the ground that the area of the instant land was 1,432 square meters, but was mistakenly registered as 1,822 square meters at the time of the instant partition, and notified the Plaintiff thereof around that time.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 8, 9, Eul evidence No. 2-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7-4, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff owned, occupied, used, and registered the land in this case equivalent to the area in the cadastral record. However, as a result of the defendant's registration of the land subject to correction of registered matters in the cadastral record, the area of the land in this case was reduced to 118 square meters (i.e., 118 square meters x 600,000 won) and suffered damages equivalent to the market price, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant argued to the purport that he is liable to compensate the plaintiff. Accordingly, even if the area of G land surveyed at the time of the division in this case was 259 square meters, the public official in charge enters the area of G land into the cadastral record and converted it into the land of this case into the land of this case into the land of 1187 square meters on March 2, 197, and thus, it is identical to the present situation of boundary, etc. in the cadastral map prepared at the time of the division in this case, and therefore, it cannot comply with the plaintiff's claim.