The judgment below

The part of the claim for return of unjust enrichment is reversed, and this part of the case is the Seoul Western District Court.

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 No. 1, the boundary restoration surveying conducted to restore the boundary on the cadastral map on the basis of whether the boundary is invaded or not, shall be conducted in the same manner as the surveying conducted at the time of registration, according to the surveying method at the time of registration, and based on the reference point at the time of surveying, and there is no accuracy because the surveying method or technology at the time of

Even if the boundary restoration survey is conducted, more detailed survey method is needed by the method of survey at the time of registration.

(2) No person may conduct a survey immediately by means of such method.

In the case of the partition survey by the plane table survey based on the base point at the time of registration of land, in principle, the boundary restoration survey should be conducted based on the base point at the time of registration.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da177917807 Decided October 10, 2003). Based on the adopted evidence, the lower court determined that the first instance court’s appraiser’s surveying by the same cadastral survey method based on the same base point as above was lawful, recognizing the fact that: (a) the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 3 large-47§³ (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) owned by the Plaintiff and D large-173§³ (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) were divided from I land on June 27, 1960 and first registered; and (b) the said cadastral survey at the time of the said division was conducted by the horizontal survey method based on the specific base point.

Examining the record, the above determination by the court below is justifiable in light of the legal principles as seen earlier.

In doing so, the court below erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on boundary restoration surveying.