1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the land indicated in paragraph 3 of the land list in the annexed sheet No. 1 shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendant on June 2017.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 1, 2014, the Changwon-gu Seoul Special Act on Cadastral Resurvey (Amended by Act No. 14800, Apr. 18, 2017; hereinafter “former Cadastral Resurvey Act”) designated a zone B (hereinafter “instant project district”) in Changwon-si as a cadastral resurvey project district pursuant to Articles 7 and 8 of the former Special Act on Cadastral Resurvey (Amended by Act No. 14800, Apr. 18, 2017).

(Public Notice C of Changwon-si). (b)

The Plaintiff is the owner of the land listed in the attached Form 1 List of Land in the instant project district (hereinafter referred to as “D land”), the land listed in paragraph 2, and the land listed in paragraph 3, located in the attached Table 1 List of Land (hereinafter referred to as “F land”).

C. On August 25, 2016, the competent cadastral authority of the instant project district (Article 2 subparag. 5 of the former Cadastral Resurvey Act, Article 2 subparag. 18 of the Spatial Data Construction and Management Act), the Defendant, upon determining the boundaries of the instant project district pursuant to Article 16 of the former Cadastral Resurvey Act (hereinafter “instant boundary determination”), set a boundary according to the actual boundary of land pursuant to Article 14(1)1 of the former Cadastral Resurvey Act. As a result, the boundary of D, E, and F land owned by the Plaintiff was changed differently from the existing one.

Around May 2, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the instant boundary determination, and filed an objection pursuant to Article 17 of the former Cadastral Resurvey Act regarding the instant boundary determination, but the Defendant rendered a decision of dismissal on June 16, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, Eul's 1 through 3, 5, 12 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Attached Form 2 of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. We examine the part of the incineration ex officio, and the plaintiff stated that only the boundary of D and E land at the second date for pleading of this case does not dispute the boundary of F land. Thus, the part of the lawsuit of this case relating to F land in this case is illegal because there is no legal interest to dispute this.