Methods of surveying Boundary Restoration

Since the boundary restoration survey conducted to restore a boundary in the cadastral map as a problem of whether a boundary is invaded or not shall be conducted in the same way as the survey conducted at the time of registration, the boundary restoration survey shall be conducted in the same way as at the time of registration, and the basis point at the time of registration shall be the basis at the time of the first survey. Therefore, even if there was no accuracy because the survey method or technology at the time of registration has not been developed, it shall be based on the survey method at the time of registration, and there is no more detailed survey method and it shall not be conducted by such method

Article 212 of the Civil Act, Article 25(2) of the Cadastral Act, Article 45 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant-Appellee et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Supreme Court Decision 91Da34561 Delivered on March 27, 1992

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na23058 delivered on September 23, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

In this case, the boundary restoration surveying conducted to restore the boundary on the cadastral map as the problem is whether the boundary is invaded or not, and in order to restore the boundary on the cadastral map, shall be conducted by the same method as the surveying method at the time of registration (Article 45 of the Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Act). In the above boundary restoration surveying, the first measurement method at the time of registration shall be followed and the second measurement shall be based on the basis at the time of survey (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da13295 delivered on January 14, 1994). Therefore, even if there was no accuracy due to the development of surveying method or technology at the time of registration, it shall be based on the surveying method at the time of registration in case of the boundary restoration surveying, and there is no more precise measurement method, and it shall not be conducted by such method.

According to the records, the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City ( Address 1 omitted) and 117 square meters ( Address 2 omitted) and 358 square meters ( Address 3 omitted) which are owned by the defendant (hereinafter “the land of this case”) are divided from the previous forests and fields. The method of surveying at the time of October 1969, when the land of this case was divided and registered from the previous forests and fields, ( Address 4 omitted), ( Address 5 omitted), ( Address 6 omitted), ( Address 7 omitted), ( Address 8 omitted), ( Address 9 omitted), ( Address 10 omitted), and ( Address 11 omitted), which are owned by the plaintiff, are used as the front roads of the land of this case. However, the result of the appraisal by the appraiser of the first instance court, who asserted that the court below had to adopt the basic survey based on the cadastral triangulation point, is not clear that the land of this case and the result of the appraisal by the non-party 1, who did not adopt the boundary point at the time of the above survey and the result of the survey of this case.

Furthermore, according to the result of the appraisal by the non-party 2 of the first instance trial appraiser, the defendant does not occupy the forest of this case owned by the plaintiff. In light of the records, it can be recognized that the above facts have been revealed as a result of the boundary restoration surveying based on the method of surveying and the basis point of surveying at the time when the land of this case was to be converted from the forest of this case from the forest of this case to the land of this case at the time when the land of this case was divided and registered in the previous forest of this case from October 1969, and in 1972,

All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)