[1] The method of surveying the boundary restoration

[2] Where the base point cannot be found due to changes in land circumstances due to the method of surveying at the time of registration, the method of surveying boundary restoration

[1] A boundary restoration survey conducted to restore a boundary on the cadastral map as a matter of whether a boundary is invaded or not shall be conducted by the same method as the survey conducted at the time of registration. Thus, the survey method at the time of registration should be followed, and the standard point at the time of survey should be the standard point at the time of registration. Although there is no accuracy due to the development of survey method or technology at the time of registration, there is a more detailed survey method at the time of registration, and it cannot be conducted immediately by such method.

[2] In principle, in a case where a sectional surveying was conducted by the plane table surveying based on the base point at the time of the registration of land, the boundary restoration surveying shall be conducted based on the base point at the time of registration. However, if it was impossible to conduct boundary restoration surveying 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 surveying based on the base point at the time of registration can be conducted on the basis of the surrounding base point at the time of registration based on the unit point at the time of registration. If it was impossible to conduct boundary restoration surveying due to changes in the situation of the relevant land, the boundary restoration surveying based on the ground point at the time of registration shall be conducted.

[1] Article 25 (2) of the Cadastral Act, Article 45 of the Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Act / [2] Article 25 (2) of the Cadastral Act, Article 45 of the Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Da42451 delivered on February 14, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 755) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da56381 delivered on May 13, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1675), Supreme Court Decision 94Da58490, 58506 delivered on April 21, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1934) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 90Da10346, 10353 delivered on June 14, 1991 (Gong191, 1914) 90Da15266 delivered on July 23, 1991

Long-Term Credit Union

Defendant 1 and three others

Suwon District Court Decision 95Na8840 delivered on July 10, 1996

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The Defendants’ grounds of appeal are examined.

The boundary restoration surveying conducted to restore a boundary in the cadastral map as a matter of whether it is a crime of course shall be done in the same way as the surveying conducted at the time of registration. Thus, the surveying conducted at the time of registration shall be based on the reference point as at the time of registration. Although the surveying method or technology at the time of registration has no accuracy, it cannot be conducted immediately because there is a more detailed method of surveying conducted at the time of registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da42451, Feb. 14, 1997; 94Da58490, 5806, Apr. 21, 1995; 93Da56381, May 13, 1994; 94Da16490, Apr. 21, 1995; 97Da16381, Apr. 16, 196). 19, it was impossible to find the boundary restoration point at the time of boundary restoration based on the boundary restoration point at the point at the time of boundary restoration.

According to the records, the land owned by the plaintiff was registered after the partition survey was conducted by the plane table survey based on the original base point. The ground point at the time of the registration of the land was not found due to the change of the present situation, and it seems that the base point at the time of the registration cannot be found similar to the conditions at the time of the registration. Thus, the boundary restoration survey of the land at the time of the registration cannot be conducted by the plane table survey identical to the time of the partition registration based on the basic survey and the result of the fact-finding on the non-party of the first instance court's appraisal attached to the records (Records 11 through 124) and the result of the fact-finding on the non-party of the land (Records 172 through 173) cadastral survey conducted by the non-party appraiser at the time of the registration of the land at the time of the above cadastral survey and the result of the fact-finding survey (the result of the second cadastral survey conducted by the non-party appraiser at the time of the registration of the boundary point at the time of the above cadastral survey cannot be found to be based on the boundary restoration point.

Although the judgment of the court below is somewhat insufficient in its explanation, it is proper to adopt the appraisal result and determine that the building owned by the Defendants infringed on the boundary of the land of this case owned by the plaintiff, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or violation of precedents. The argument is without merit.

Therefore, all appeals are 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.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)