[1] The method of surveying the boundary restoration

[2] The method of surveying the boundary restoration where the base point cannot be found according to the surveying method at the time of registration

[1] A boundary restoration survey conducted to restore a boundary on the cadastral map as a matter of whether a boundary is invaded or not shall be conducted by the same method as the survey conducted at the time of registration. Thus, the survey method at the time of registration should be followed, and the standard point at the time of survey should be the standard point at the time of registration. Although there is no accuracy due to the development of survey method or technology at the time of registration, there is a more detailed survey method at the time of registration, and it cannot be conducted immediately by such method.

[2] In a case where a cadastral survey was conducted by a plane table surveying based on the point at the time of the registration of land, in principle, the boundary restoration surveying shall be conducted based on the point at the time of registration, but if it was impossible to conduct a boundary restoration surveying based on the point at the time of registration because it was not possible to find the base point at the time of registration, the boundary restoration surveying based on the point at the time of registration can be conducted on the basis of the point around the surrounding base point at the time of registration. If it was impossible to conduct a boundary restoration surveying due to changes in the situation of the land at issue due to the above method, the boundary restoration surveying should be conducted based on the fact that the boundary restoration surveying was conducted by the basic survey.

[1] Article 25 of the Cadastral Act, Article 45 of the Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Act / [2] Article 25 of the Cadastral Act, Article 45 of the Enforcement Decree of the Cadastr

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Da42451 delivered on February 14, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 755), Supreme Court Decision 96Da34283 delivered on March 27, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1156) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da56381 delivered on May 13, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1675), Supreme Court Decision 94Da58490 delivered on April 21, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1934), Supreme Court Decision 96Da14593 delivered on August 20, 196 (2) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 90Da196319 delivered on June 14, 1991, 194; 190Da1293194 delivered on June 13, 1994

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) (Attorney Cho Jae-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant Counterclaim Plaintiff and two others

Chuncheon District Court Decision 200Na2935, 2001Na6170 delivered on January 23, 2002

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

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff and the defendants are also examined.

1. The judgment of the court below

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the part concerning the defendant 6 non-party 6 non-party 6 non-party 6 land which is the non-party 1 non-party 6 land and the non-party 6 land which is the non-party 6 land uniting on the non-party 1 land and the non-party 6 land uniting on the non-party 7 land which is the non-party 6 land uniting on the non-party 6 land uniting on the non-party 6 land uniting on the non-party 6 land uniting on the non-party 6 land uniting on the non-party 6 land uniting on the non-party 6 land uniting on the non-party 1 land uniting on the non-party 7 land uniting on the non-party 1 land uniting on the non-party 6 land uniting on the non-party 1 land uniting on the non-party 6 land uniting on the non-party 7 land uniting on the non-party 1 land uniting on the land unit.

2. The judgment of this Court

However, we cannot agree with the judgment of the court below which rejected the result of the survey appraisal by the first instance trial appraiser on the ground that there is no proof as to the survey method and survey control point at the time of the divisional survey for the forest land 76 forest land prior to the instant subdivision.

The boundary restoration surveying conducted to restore a boundary on the cadastral map as a matter of whether it has been a matter of course shall be done in the same way as the surveying conducted at the time of registration. Thus, the surveying conducted at the time of registration should be based on the reference point at the time of registration. Although there is no accuracy because the surveying method or technology at the time of registration has not developed, it cannot be done immediately by that method (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Da56381 delivered on May 13, 1994, 94Da5890, 5806 delivered on April 21, 1995, 96Da196490 delivered on February 14, 1997, 96Da42451 delivered on February 14, 1997, 96Da19649 delivered on the boundary restoration point at the time of registration at the time of boundary restoration cannot be found as the reference point at the time of registration or boundary restoration based on the boundary restoration surveying at the point at the time of registration 96.

The records reveal that the registration of ownership transfer was made on July 16, 193 to the non-party 1, the non-party 6 non-party 1 and the non-party 6 were registered on the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 6 were destroyed on October 197. The non-party 1 and the non-party 6 were registered on the non-party 1 and the non-party 6 were registered on the non-party 1 and the non-party 6 were registered on the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 6 were registered on the non-party 1 and the non-party 9 were registered on the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 6 were registered on the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 6 were registered on the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 6 were registered on the non-party 1 and the non-party 9.

In light of the above, the court below should have found the boundary restoration surveying based on the fact that the plaintiff and the defendants did not prove the surveying method and cadastral control point at the time of the partition surveying, but it should have discovered the surveying method and cadastral control point at the time of partition surveying by the method of investigating the plaintiff and the defendants, etc. on the ground that the plaintiff and the defendants did not prove the surveying method and cadastral control point at the time of the partition surveying. In addition, if it was impossible to conduct boundary restoration surveying based on the base point at the time of registration because it was impossible to find the base point at the time of registration due to the lack of the existing base point at the time of registration, the boundary restoration surveying based on the surrounding base point at the time of registration. Furthermore, if the boundary restoration surveying was impossible due to the change of the situation of the target land, the boundary restoration surveying based on the fact that the boundary restoration surveying was conducted by the basic survey was conducted by finding the root point in the surrounding land at the time of the partition surveying (in accordance with the results of inquiry by the court below, it seems that the boundary boundary point at the point at the point at the time of the cadastral boundary point at the point is high.

Nevertheless, the court below's rejection of all of the plaintiff's main claim and the defendants' main claim for cadastral control point solely on the ground that there is no proof of the survey method and cadastral control point used at the time of dividing the forest land in mountain 76 before the division of this case, shall be deemed to have been erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the method of boundary restoration surveying, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error has merit

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is entirely reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)