'Reality boundary' cadastral reinvestigation overturned in second trial... “It should be viewed as a case of dispute.”

Two pieces of land between a stone wall... 1st trial: “I did not request to move the fence…there is no dispute regarding the boundary.”
2nd trial: “If there is a conflict of opinion even after the cadastral reinvestigation, it should be considered a case of dispute.”

The court ruled that if there was a conflict of opinion regarding the boundary even after notification of the cadastral reinvestigation, it constitutes a case of dispute.

According to the legal community on the 31st, the 1st Administrative Department of the Gwangju High Court canceled the first trial ruling and ruled in favor of the plaintiff in the appeal trial on the 26th of last month in a lawsuit filed by a woman in her 70s, Ms.

Mr. A is a land owner in a village located in Goheung-gun, Jeollanam-do.

There was a stone wall between it and Mr. B's land adjacent to it.

Mr. A has been managing and occupying the land on a daily basis, including installing a TV receiver in the space beyond the stone wall, because according to the cadastral map, this space was Mr. A's land.

However, the conflict began in 2021 when Goheung-gun sent a notice of scheduled cadastral confirmation to Mr. A.

The military notified Mr. A of its plan to adjust the boundary using the stone wall as the actual boundary according to the results of the cadastral resurvey survey.

In this case, the space beyond the stone wall that Mr. A had used for a long time is transferred to Mr. B's ownership.

Accordingly, Mr. A submitted a written opinion to the county requesting that the boundary between the two lands be maintained as existing.

The county boundary determination committee accepted Mr. A's opinion, but Mr. B objected and filed an appeal.

The committee dismissed the case, but Mr. B filed an administrative appeal again, and the Jeollanam-do Administrative Appeals Commission subsequently canceled the county's decision to dismiss.

Mr. A filed an administrative lawsuit based on Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Cadastral Resurvey Act.

The relevant article stipulates that ‘if there is no dispute over the ground boundary, the actual boundary of possession is the standard, and if there is a dispute, the boundary is determined based on the survey record at the time of registration.’

Mr. A argued that since he had actually been using the space before the cadastral resurvey survey, it was a case of ‘a dispute’ between the two landowners.

The first trial court dismissed Mr. A’s claim.

The court ruled, “The plaintiff did not request Mr. B to move the fence outside the boundary or file a lawsuit related to this until before the cadastral resurvey project, and only submitted a written opinion after completing the survey,” and concluded, “Therefore, it is difficult to say that there was a dispute regarding the boundary.”

Mr. A, who was dissatisfied with this, appealed, and the second trial court ruled in Mr. A's favor.

The appellate court explained, "Before the cadastral resurvey, there was no room for a dispute to arise as Mr. B did not use the space, but after the boundary adjustment notification, the plaintiff submitted a written opinion. Even after the cadastral resurvey, if there was a conflict of opinion regarding the boundary, this should be considered a 'case where there is a dispute.'"

Attorney Ko Young-kyung of Daeryun Law Firm, who represents Mr. A, said, "If land owners used the land based on each other's explicit or implicit consent to use the land, even if there was no long-term dispute, it cannot be concluded that there is no dispute over the ground boundary unless there are special circumstances such as agreement or waiver of ownership."

He explained, "Regardless of the structure, we were able to overturn the result at the appeals court by emphasizing that Mr. A did not give up his ownership of the land, citing the fact that he occupied and managed the facility beyond the fence."

Shin Min-ji (sourminjee@ikbc.co.kr)

[View full article]
2nd trial of cadastral reinvestigation of 'reality boundary' overturned... “It should be viewed as a case of dispute” (Shortcut)