beta
Text
The judgment below
Among them, the part on the claim for removal against Defendant Lonedo Construction Co., Ltd. is reversed, and this part is reversed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As to the ground of appeal on the claim for removal against Defendant Lonedo Construction Co., Ltd.
(a) A boundary restoration survey for the restoration of a boundary in the cadastral map because it becomes an issue as to whether the boundary is invaded, shall be conducted by the method of survey as at the time the boundary is registered in the cadastral map and be based on the cadastral control point or base point as at the time of such survey;
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da11606, 11613 Decided July 12, 2012, etc.). In addition, in a case where a partition survey was conducted by a plane table survey based on the base point at the time of registration of land, the boundary restoration survey is, in principle, based on the base point at the time of registration, conducted based on the base point at the time of registration, but if it was impossible to conduct a boundary restoration survey based on the base point at the time of registration because it was not possible to find the base point at the time of registration, the boundary restoration survey can be conducted based on the base point around the conditions similar to the registration at the time of registration based on the unit point at the time of registration, and if it was impossible to conduct a boundary restoration survey by the said method due to changes in the situation of the subject land, the boundary restoration survey has to be conducted based on finding the root point of the neighboring land by the basic survey.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da17791, 17807 delivered on October 10, 2003, etc.) B.
Based on the adopted evidence, the lower court, on September 30, 2003, conducted a boundary restoration survey (hereinafter “the instant boundary restoration survey”) on the E-gi, Mado Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Ldo Construction”) with respect to the land of 851.9 square meters (hereinafter “E land”). Unlike the previous survey, the current status of E land is C large 262.1 square meters owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).