Whether a lawsuit for confirmation of boundary is allowed to determine the scope of ownership (negative)

A lawsuit for the determination of boundaries is a formal form of lawsuit seeking to defienly determine the public boundary in a case where a dispute arises over the boundary between the parcel number and the parcel number in the land of one parcel and the land of one parcel, that is, the public boundary between the parcel number and the parcel number, and it is not permissible to file a lawsuit in order to determine the scope of ownership for which private autonomy is permitted in light of the purpose and legal nature of the lawsuit for the determination of boundaries.

Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act (Institution of Lawsuit)

No. 9 (Attorney Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellee] Yuwon (Attorney Kim Chang-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul District Court Decision 94Da34945, 95Ga3504 delivered on August 24, 1995

Supreme Court Order 96Da33167 Decided December 28, 1996

1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

The main lawsuit:1. In the first place, among the real estate listed in the separate sheet, the boundary between the two points in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 1, "A", "B", and the separate sheet No. 3, 30, 26, 15, 4, and 3, and the separate sheet No. 52.8 square meters in sequence, which are owned by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter only the Defendant) and the separate sheet No. 3, 30, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 1, among the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 and 4, the boundary between the two points in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 1 are confirmed to be owned by the Plaintiff.

2. The Defendant shall not interfere with the Plaintiff’s installation of fences on the line connecting each point of the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 3 and 4.

Counterclaim: On the one hand, the boundary between "B" and "B" in the attached Form No. 2, 30, 26, 15, 6, and 2, among the real estate listed in the attached Table No. 2, 30, 26, 15, 6, and 2, which successively connects each point of which is indicated in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 6, 7, and 1, and the part "A" which connects each point of which is indicated in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 6, 7, and 1, which are listed in the attached Table No. 86.0 square meters, shall be determined by the line which connects each point of which is indicated in the attached Form No. 2, 30, 26, 15, 6, and 2, which are listed in the attached Table No. 56.3 square meters.

By cancelling the original judgment, the plaintiff's claim on the principal lawsuit is accepted, and the defendant's counterclaim is dismissed.

1. Main Safety Determination

As the main lawsuit and counterclaim of this case, the plaintiff's land on the attached list (hereinafter "the real estate of this case") and five adjacent lots is owned by 12 persons, including the plaintiff and the defendant. However, as the land in the so-called sectional ownership ownership of each specific part of the land is owned by each of the co-owners, the plaintiff owned the house on the land of this case and owned by 1,2,6,7 and 1, and owned "inboard" part 86.0 square meters (hereinafter "Ga"), and the land boundary line of this case with the above 2,3,4,6 and 2 are owned by 3.5 square meters (hereinafter "Ba"), and the plaintiff's land boundary line on the land of this case is also owned by 3.5 square meters (the part of the land of this case which is owned by 4,000 square meters) and the part which is owned by 3,000 square meters (the land of this case) and is also owned by 4,000 square meters (the land of this case).

(a) Whether the main lawsuit and the main counterclaim with respect to the confirmation of the site boundary are legitimate;

First of all, a lawsuit for confirmation of boundary is a formal formation lawsuit in which a dispute arises concerning the boundary between the land of one parcel and the land of one parcel, i.e., the boundary between the lot number and the lot number, and where the public boundary is to be determined in unaccompaniedly, it means only the public boundary between the lot number and the lot number, and it is not possible to file a lawsuit in order to determine the scope of private autonomy in terms of the purpose and legal nature of the lawsuit.

However, the part of the above "A", "B", and "C, which the plaintiff and the defendant claimed as his own ownership, is part of the real estate of this case, which are one parcel, and it is nothing more than that of the plaintiff and the defendant exclusively own each specific part because the mutual title trust agreement on the part possessed between 112 co-owners, including the plaintiff and the defendant, regarding the real estate of this case has been formed. Thus, it is clear that the boundary for which the plaintiff and the defendant seek such confirmation is the boundary refers to the scope or limit of ownership among the land of one parcel, and it is not the public boundary between the parcel number and parcel number which are the object of the lawsuit for confirmation of boundary.

Therefore, this part of the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim claim are not in the nature of seeking a lawsuit as a lawsuit for the confirmation of boundaries, so it is unlawful (In addition, in light of the fact that the lawsuit for the confirmation of boundaries is a formal formation lawsuit with non-refient nature, so long as the plaintiff filed a principal lawsuit for the confirmation of boundaries, this part of the defendant's counterclaim does not have the interest of lawsuit)

B. Whether the lawsuit concerning "A" part of the preliminary lawsuit seeking confirmation of the Plaintiff's ownership and the lawsuit about "C" part of the Defendant's preliminary counterclaim is legitimate

As seen earlier, the plaintiff asserts that the part of "A" and "B" among the real estate in this case is owned by the plaintiff, and the defendant is holding only the part of "C" and "B" as the defendant's ownership, and therefore, it is clear that there is no dispute as to whether the part of "B" and "A" are owned by the plaintiff and the defendant in this case.

Therefore, in order to resolve the dispute between the parties to the real estate of this case, it is sufficient for the plaintiff and the defendant to seek the confirmation of ownership of the above part of the main lawsuit of this case and the counterclaim of this case, and therefore, the lawsuit of this part seeking confirmation of ownership of each part of the above part of the main lawsuit of this case and the counterclaim of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of

2. The judgment on the merits (the judgment on the reversion of ownership in the part B of the real estate in this case) shall be made together with the main lawsuit and the counterclaim.

(a) Basic facts;

이 사건 부동산과 이에 인접한 서울 성동구 마장동 443의 1 대 797㎡, 같은동 456의 1 대 246.9㎡, 같은동 456의 3 대 1029.8㎡, 같은동 457 대 3056.9㎡, 같은동 460의 22 대 1911.7㎡ 등 6필지 9,353㎡는 원·피고를 포함한 112명의 공유로 등기되어 있으나, 위 공유자 각인은 위 대지 중 특정 부분을 매수하여 그 위에 가옥을 신축하거나, 이미 신축된 가옥을 그 특정한 대지와 함께 매수한 관계로, 내부적으로는 각기 그 점유하고 있는 특정 부분을 단독으로 소유하고 있는 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없고, 갑 제1호증의 1 내지 4(각 등기부등본), 갑 제3호증의 2 내지 5(각 현황측량성과도), 갑 제5호증의 2(공소장), 13(고소장), 31(피의자신문조서), 갑 제9호증(건축물관리대장), 을 제1호증(등기부등본)의 각 기재, 을 제2호증의 1 내지 11(각 사진)의 각 영상, 원심증인 하종민, 윤신자, 당심증인 이용우의 각 증언, 원심법원의 현장검증 결과 및 원심감정인 황윤보의 감정 결과에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고는 1959.경 이 사건 부동산 지상에 건축된 목조 기와지붕 단층주택 54.55㎡(이하 구 가옥이라고 한다)를 1971. 8. 9. 그 부지와 함께 매수하여 같은 달 12. 그 공유지분인 5063분의 47.44지분에 관하여 공유지분권이전등기를 경료하였고, 피고는 위 구가옥에 인접하여 이 사건 부동산 지상에 건축되었던 시멘트 블럭조 및 목조, 시멘기와 단층주택 29.25㎡를 1983. 10. 20. 그 부지와 함께 매수하여 같은 날 그 공유지분인 5063분의 34.88지분에 관하여 공유지분권이전등기를 경료한 사실, 원고의 구가옥과 피고의 가옥은 각 그 건축시부터 두 가옥 사이에는 담장이 설치되어 있지 아니한 채, 별지 도면 표시 2, 6의 각 점을 연결한 직선상에 원고의 구가옥의 후면 방벽이 위치하였던 관계로(그 일부분에는 피고의 가옥 마당의 장독대가 서로 맞붙어 있었다) 이 직선을 기준으로 하여 원고의 구가옥과 피고의 가옥의 부지의 사실상 구분이 이루어져 피고는 위 방벽과 피고의 가옥 사이의 공지를 장독대와 마당 등으로 점유·사용해 온 사실, 그에 따라 원고는 이 사건 부동산 중 위 구가옥의 부지로서 별지 도면 표시 '가' 부분을, 피고는 자신의 가옥부지로서 별지 도면 표시 '다' 부분과 장독대와 마당 등으로 사용되어진 '나' 부분을 각기 점유하여 온 사실, 그러던 중 원고는 1993. 2. 17.경 이웃집 소유자들인 피고 및 소외 송민호, 정영순과 함께 각기 그 구가옥을 헐고 새가옥을 신축하기 위하여 건축업자인 소외 하종민을 통하여, 대한지적공사 서울시지사 성동출장소에 이 사건 부동산을 각 그 점유현황대로 측량하여 줄 것을 의뢰하였는데, 1993. 2. 25. 위 성동출장소에서는 원고의 구가옥 방벽과 피고 집 마당의 장독대가 서로 맞붙어 있는 접합점을 기준으로 삼지 않고, 원고의 구가옥 방벽에서 피고의 가옥 마당쪽으로 돌출한 원고 구가옥의 처마 끝을 기준으로 하여 지적측량을 실시한 결과, 원·피고 소유대지의 경계선이 원고 구가옥의 처마 끝 선과 일치하는 별지 도면 표시 3, 4를 연결한 직선으로 획정되고, 피고가 장독대 등으로 점유하고 있던 위 '나' 부분이 원고의 소유대지인 것으로 측량된 사실, 원고는 구가옥을 헐고 1993. 8.경 그 자리에 연와조 평슬래지붕 다가구용 단독주택을 신축하였는데, 그 건축과정에서 피고가 기존 구가옥 방벽과 자신의 가옥 장독대의 접합점을 따라 담장을 칠 것을 요구하며 관할 구청에 진정을 하자, 원고는 일단 피고의 요구를 수용하여 새가옥을 신축하면서 구가옥 방벽과 피고의 장독대와의 접합점인 별지도면 표시 2, 6의 각 점을 연결하는 직선상에 세멘블럭조 담장을 설치하였다가 그 신축공사가 완공된 후, 다시 위 담장을 철거하고 별지도면 표시 3, 4의 각 점을 연결하는 직선상에 경계담장의 설치를 시도하려고 한 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 반증이 없다.

B. The assertion and judgment

The plaintiff, although the plaintiff's house and the defendant's house met each other at the time of the survey of the real estate in this case, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to determine the site owned by the plaintiff on the basis of the part that the end of the roof end of the house in this case. As a result of the survey of the Sungdong Branch of the Korea Cadastral Corporation, "B" part of the real estate in this case is the plaintiff's site, and even if not, as a result of the above survey, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to determine the boundary of the plaintiff among the real estate in this case as a result of the above survey before the above survey, as the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to determine the boundary of the plaintiff among the real estate in this case, as a result of the above survey of the Korea Cadastral Corporation Sungdong Branch, the plaintiff argued that the above part "B" or "B" part of the real estate in this case is the plaintiff's site owned by the plaintiff, and on this premise, the plaintiff argued that the defendant's act of installing a fence connected with the above part 3 and 4 "B" part of the defendant's claim.

In light of the above facts, as alleged by the Plaintiff, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s roof eavess of the Plaintiff’s house and the Defendant’s house contacted each other as alleged by the Plaintiff, and rather, considering the overall purport of the pleading as a result of on-site inspection of the images of the Plaintiff’s house Nos. 2-1 through 11 and the Defendant’s wife’s entire purport of the pleading, it can be observed that there was a considerable distance between the Plaintiff’s eaves and the Defendant’s eavess of the house. Next, under the agreement of the Plaintiff’s head and the Defendant at the time of surveying the real estate in this case, the part where the eavess of the two houses come into contact or at least the Defendant’s eavess head and the Defendant’s head and the Defendant’s head and the Defendant’s head and the Defendant’s head and the Defendant’s head are not sufficient to recognize that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff’s witness and the Defendant’s head and the Defendant’s head and the Defendant’s head and the Defendant’s witness’s head and the Defendant’s evidence No. 3 of each of this case’s evidence No.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the plaintiff's main lawsuit concerning "A" among the main lawsuit of this case against the defendant and the main lawsuit about "B" for the confirmation of ownership among the main lawsuit of this case against "A" and the main lawsuit about "B" against the plaintiff are all unlawful, it shall be dismissed, and since there is a benefit to seek confirmation, the part concerning "B" among the main lawsuit of this case against the defendant shall be deemed to belong to the defendant and there is a benefit to seek confirmation. Thus, the part concerning the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of ownership of the main lawsuit of this case, "B" among the main lawsuit of this case against the defendant, which seeks confirmation of ownership of the main lawsuit of this case and the main lawsuit seeking the confirmation of ownership of the main lawsuit of this case, "B" shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and since the judgment below is just, it shall be dismissed as it is decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the cost of lawsuit by the plaintiff.

Judge Lee Jae-jin (Presiding Judge)