1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion is the owner of the land of this case. The defendant is the owner of the land of this case, and the defendant is the owner of land E/F (hereinafter "land in this case"). The defendant, without title, installs the wall of this case on the surface of part of the land of this case as stated in the purport of the claim, and occupies them by planting trees. Thus, the defendant is obligated to remove the wall of this case and collect the above trees and deliver them.

B. According to the result of the boundary survey conducted on September 2, 1981, the Defendant: (a) installed the fence of this case depending on the boundary between the land of this case and the surrounding land; and (b) planted trees.

The result of the survey and appraisal conducted by Gap evidence Nos. 4 (cadastral Results) and appraiser D in the first instance trial, which was presented by the defendant on the ground that he violated the land owned by the plaintiff, is not legitimate by using a method and standard point different from that used at the time of registration of original and the defendant's land.

Therefore, there is no evidence that the Defendant violated the boundary of the instant land.

2. Determination

A. As evidence consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion, the result of the cadastral survey conducted on November 12, 2012 (Evidence A 4) and the result of the survey and appraisal conducted on November 12, 2012 by the appraiser D of the first instance trial.

We examine whether the results of the above survey were due process and method.

(b) If a parcel of land is registered with one parcel in the cadastral record under the Cadastral Act, the land is specified by this registration unless there are special circumstances, so the scope of the ownership of such land shall be determined by the boundary on the cadastral record regardless of the actual boundary, unless there are special circumstances, such as where, in preparing the cadastral map, the boundary on the cadastral map has been prepared differently from the true boundary due to a technical error

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da2333, Feb. 9, 1996).