logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.01.15 2015나2002841
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established for the purpose of surveying cadastral and researching intellectual systems, etc. according to the parcel number of each of the above land, and the Plaintiff is the owner of Pyeongtaek-si B, 964 square meters, C, C, 2,930 square meters of land (hereinafter “instant B and C”).

B. The instant land B and C adjoins the boundary between Pyeongtaek-si E-si and 5,641 square meters, F-1,652 square meters, G forest 924 square meters (hereinafter “instant E, F, and G land”) and the south of land according to the parcel number of each of the instant land.

C. Around August 2003, the Plaintiff paid the fee to the Defendant when requesting a boundary restoration survey to restore the boundary points in the cadastral map or forestry map with respect to the instant land B and C on the ground surface. Accordingly, the Defendant, on August 20, 2003, conducted a boundary restoration survey between each of the instant lands and the instant land and the J, K, and L, and issued the Plaintiff the survey result map (Evidence A No. 3) indicating the relevant boundary (hereinafter “instant survey”).

2) At the time of the instant survey, the Plaintiff established a steel net between the instant land B, C, and the instant F and G land (hereinafter “instant steel net”) based on the boundary marks installed at the boundary points of each of the instant land.

On July 6, 2006, H, the owner of the instant F land between the instant B and C and the instant F land, alleged that the instant steel net was installed against the Plaintiff by breaking the boundary of the land, and filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for removal of pents and request for the delivery of land (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”). On August 16, 2007, the said court rendered a judgment accepting the claim of H on the grounds that the Plaintiff filed an appeal and final appeal, but the said judgment became final and conclusive as it was, as it was, by dismissal.

E. The instant land B and the instant land

arrow