1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion and evidence supplemented by the court of first instance are considered, since the reasoning of the court’s judgment is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, other than the dismissal or additional determination as set forth in the following 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Act, this is acceptable as it is in accordance

2. Parts to be dried;

(a) to delete and replace by: (a) the forests corresponding to four pages of the judgment of the first instance [1] and to the following forests:

I G S C L

(b)be incorporated into the Korea Land Information Corporation in the fourth five pages of the judgment.

(c)the 4th six pages of the judgment of the court shall be subject to the “survey of Boundary Restoration” with “survey of Registration Conversion”;

"A evidence No. 11, A No. 17, and A No. 22" are added to the 5th one to four grounds for recognition.

E. On the 6th and 4th of the judgment, “(1/6,000), the Plaintiff’s land is in the forestry map 2, which is a small scale (1/6,000), and the Defendant’s land is in the land cadastral map 2, which is a large scale (1/1,200)”, “(1/600) map 2, which is a small scale (1/600), indicates the boundary line of the Plaintiff’s land and the Incheon Reinforcement-gun’s G land (hereinafter “G land”), but the cadastral map 1/1200, which is a large scale (1/1200), was written with the boundary line of the above two land.”

3. The portion to be determined additionally

A. Regarding the assertion that there is a procedural defect in the execution of the on-site survey, etc., the Plaintiff asserts that there was a procedural defect that did not undergo the on-site survey while conducting the second survey of this case, and that there was a procedural defect that did not go through the procedure of cancelling a certain survey result even though the results of the first and the second surveys are different.

According to the facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 18, Gap evidence No. 19, Eul evidence No. 22, Eul evidence No. 7, Eul evidence No. 7, and the whole purport of the testimony and pleadings of the witness of the court of first instance, Eul requested the Korea Land Information Corporation to conduct a cadastral survey on G land around November 24, 2015.