1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a company that runs the construction business, and the defendant is a corporation established for the purpose of surveying cadastral and researching cadastral systems.

B. On December 23, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with A (Agent B) for remodeling construction of a ground warehouse and boiler room building (hereinafter “instant land”) on the instant land, and performed the said construction work around that time.

C. The instant land is abutting on the land D and E (hereinafter referred to as “instant adjacent land”) at the time of racing, and the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to survey the boundary of the instant land.

Accordingly, on December 2, 2016, the Defendant conducted a land boundary restoration survey.

As a result of the survey, the defendant confirmed that part of the warehouse and boiler building of this case were located on the neighboring land, and marked as posts or red papers on the boundary line.

After the survey conducted on December 2, 2016, the Plaintiff cut the roof of the part of the instant adjacent land, among the instant warehouse and boiler building, and installed new walls, etc.

E. A requested the Defendant to conduct a cadastral status survey on February 2017 in order to verify whether the building structures of the warehouse and boiler room that the Plaintiff reconstructed and the walls thereof were constructed within the instant land for the purpose of fostering the building.

However, as a result of the Defendant’s survey on the cadastral status on February 24, 2017, it was confirmed that part of the warehouse and boiler room of this case still intrudes on the adjacent land of this case.

F. A demanded the Plaintiff to reconstruct the part of the crime above, and the Plaintiff removed part of the warehouse and boiler room building in the part over which the adjoining land of this case was invaded, and reconstructed the wall, etc., and disbursed KRW 12,057,114 at the expense.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute; Gap evidence 1 through 4; Eul evidence 1 and 2; Gap evidence 5 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

- Nos. 3 and 4.