1. All the appeals against the plaintiffs' primary claims and the conjunctive claims that were changed in exchange at the trial.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs, on May 13, 2013, jointly purchased the land indicated in paragraph (1) of the annexed Table of Real Estate List (hereinafter “instant land”) from F, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 31, 2013.

The Defendants, from G on December 18, 2014, jointly purchased the land indicated in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter “instant land”) and its ground buildings, which are the adjoining land of the instant land from G, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 6, 2015.

B. On August 8, 1996, the land of this case 1 is the land merged by Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I, J, K, and E. 2) on June 5, 1979: ① L is L, ② K is M, ③ K is N is, ④ E is divided by O.

3) The area of I’s land recorded in the public record is 69 square meters, 144 square meters for J, 95 square meters for K’s area, 70 square meters for E’s area, and 378 square meters for the area recorded in the public record of the instant land that was combined with the instant land is the total area of the said land. C. The instant land formation process was divided into Seocho-gu Seoul on June 5, 1979, and there was no subsequent change in division, merger, etc. thereafter. The area recorded in the public record of the instant land is 228 square meters for the following reasons: (i) the area recorded in the public record of the instant land is 228 square meters for each of the instant land; (ii) the area recorded in the public record of the instant land is 2,4,6, and 10 square meters for each of the instant land; (iii) the area recorded in the public record of the instant land is 378 square meters for the entire pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The cadastral map of the instant land Nos. 1 and 2 was prepared at the time of dividing L and M around June 5, 1979, and due to technical errors at the time, the boundary line of the instant land No. 1 and the instant land No. 2 owned by the Defendants was wrong.

B. The boundary in the cadastral map erroneously prepared leads to the de facto boundary, which led to the present situation. Accordingly, the area of each land actually occupied by the original and the Defendant does not coincide with that in the public account book.

(c) annex.