The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined the boundary of the Plaintiff’s land and Defendant’s land owned by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the boundary of the land owned by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) as the line connected in order to each point of Annex 9, 10, 11, 7, and 5, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim seeking removal of the access road of the parking lot and delivery of the relevant part, on the premise that the boundary of the land owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s land should comply with the existing survey result.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is partially inappropriate, but there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the method of examining formal formation litigation and the method of restoring boundaries where the datum point at the time of surveying was lost, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.