1. The 308 square meters in Seopo-si owned by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the 1,894 square meters in Seopo-si owned by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) prior to D.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is the owner of 1,894 square meters prior to D in Seopo-si (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).

B. On October 1, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased the land of Seopopo City, Seopo City, 308 square meters adjacent to the Defendant’s land (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 21, 2014. On October 15, 2015, the Plaintiff obtained a building permit for the Plaintiff’s land from Seopo City, Seopo City, and constructed new housing from around that time.

C. On May 2015, the Plaintiff requested the Korea Cadastral Corporation to conduct a boundary survey on the original and the Defendant’s land and its neighboring land, and tried to install a stone fence according to the measured boundary. However, as the Defendant raised a problem about some accuracy of the boundary points, the Plaintiff installed a stone fence only for the remainder of the boundary other than the boundary of the original and the Defendant’s land (the line connecting each point in the attached Form 1 and 2).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional evidence; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the appraisal results and the purport of the entire pleadings by the Korea Land Information Corporation (Seopoon branch), it is recognized that the boundary of the adjoining original and Defendant land is the same as the line connecting each point of the items indicated in the annexed drawing Nos. 1 and 2. The parties also have no dispute as to the above boundary between the lands owned by each party.

After the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant did not dispute the boundary that was already surveyed at the request of the Plaintiff or through appraisal at this court. However, as long as the Plaintiff did not withdraw the instant lawsuit and maintains the intent to confirm the boundary by the court’s ruling, the court must determine the true boundary. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the confirmation of boundary is unlawful as there is no benefit of protecting the rights.