1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

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

3. Judgment of the court of first instance is delivered with Paragraph 2.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "However, if a certain land is registered with one parcel of land in the cadastral record, the location, lot number, land category, land register, and boundary of the land shall be specified by this registration unless there are other special circumstances, and the scope of ownership shall be determined by the boundary of the public record regardless of the actual boundary, but in the preparation of the cadastral record, where there are special circumstances, such as where the boundary on the cadastral record is prepared differently from the true boundary due to technical errors, such as erroneous selection of points in the cadastral record, the boundary of the land shall be determined by the actual boundary without the cadastral record (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da57879, Apr. 14, 195; 97Da378, Jun. 27, 1997; 2000, which is the object of the land registered in the cadastral record, and thus, it cannot be seen as being possible to register the land as the object of the cadastral record before and after the division, the specific land portion of each of the cadastral record.

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is obvious that "1, 8, 8, 4, e, f, g, h, 1" in the disposition of the court of first instance is a clerical error of "1, 8, 5, 6, g, h, h, 1" in the disposition of the court of first instance.