1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts are not disputed between the parties or may be acknowledged by taking into account each description of Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 2, 4 and 5 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of the pleadings:

The Plaintiff is the owner of the B large 264m2 (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On December 15, 2016, under Articles 7 and 8 of the former Special Act on Cadastral Resurvey (Amended by Act No. 14800, Apr. 18, 2017; hereinafter referred to as the “former Cadastral Resurvey Act”), the NN district in Gyeyang-si (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project district”) including the instant land was designated and announced as the project district in Busan-do in 2017.

C. The Defendant determined the boundaries of the instant project district by the competent cadastral authority (Article 2 subparag. 5 of the former Cadastral Resurvey Act, Article 2 subparag. 18 of the Spatial Data Construction and Management Act) of the instant project district, and determined the boundaries of the instant project district following the resolution of the Yangsan City Boundary Determination Committee, and determined that the instant land has no dispute over the ground boundaries, in accordance with the real boundary under Article 14(1) subparag. 1 of the former Cadastral Resurvey Act (attached Form 1), and notified the Plaintiff on December 5, 2017.

(hereinafter the above boundary determination is referred to as the “instant boundary determination”). D.

On January 10, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant boundary determination. However, the Yangsan City Boundary Determination Committee rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s objection, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the said decision on March 19, 2018.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The illegal Plaintiff, based on the boundary determination standard for the Plaintiff’s assertion 1, purchased the instant land based on the boundary on the cadastral record, and owned and occupied with the knowledge that the boundary and the real boundary coincide with each other.