Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
No dispute over the actual boundary itself under item (i)
Supreme Court, Aug. 14, 2025, 2025Du30653 (judgment)
Case name: 지적재조사경계결정이의신청기각결정취소[「지적재조사에 관한 특별법」 제14조 제1항 제1호의 지상경계에 다툼이 없는 경우의 해석이 문제된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
What does ‘no dispute over the surface boundary’ in Article 14(1)(i) of the Special Act on Cadastral Readjustment mean: does it require that the owners agree that the actual boundary is where ownership extends, or only that nobody disputes the actual boundary itself?
Holding
Read against the purpose of the readjustment project and the wording and structure of the provisions, item (i) covers the case in which nobody disputes the actual boundary itself, the boundary marked on the ground by dykes, walls and other structures or boundary markers. It does not require agreement that the actual boundary is the boundary where ownership extends. Where, before the readjustment measurement under Article 15, the owners disputed that the actual boundary differs from the registered boundary where ownership extends, that is one type of dispute under item (ii), and the assertion itself is only a cause of dispute; any resulting gain or loss of area can be resolved through the adjustment money under Article 20(1).
Summary of the holding, verbatim
지적재조사법 제14조 제1항 제1호에서 정한 ‘지상경계에 대하여 다툼이 없는 경우’는 ‘토지 지상에 설치된 둑, 담장 등 구조물이나 경계점표지 등에 의하여 구분되는 현실경계 자체에 대하여 다툼이 없는 경우’를 의미하는 것으로 보아야 하고, ‘현실경계가 해당 토지의 소유권이 미치는 실제 경계라는 점에 대하여 다툼이 없는 경우’를 의미한다고 볼 수 없다.
Unofficial English translation
A "case where there is no dispute over the ground boundary" as provided in Article 14, paragraph (1), subparagraph 1 of the Cadastral Resurvey Act must be regarded as meaning "a case where there is no dispute over the actual boundary itself, as demarcated by embankments, walls, or other structures installed on the land, or by boundary markers or the like," and cannot be regarded as meaning "a case where there is no dispute that the actual boundary is the true boundary to which the ownership of the land extends."
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
이러한 지적재조사사업의 목적, 관련 규정의 문언과 체계 등을 종합하면, 지적재조사법 제14조 제1항 제1호에서 정한 ‘지상경계에 대하여 다툼이 없는 경우’는
Unofficial English translation
Taken together, the purpose of such cadastral resurvey projects, and the wording and system of the relevant provisions, the "case where there is no dispute over the ground boundary" as provided in Article 14, paragraph (1), subparagraph 1 of the Cadastral Resurvey Act
Factors
- 토지 지상에 설치된 둑, 담장 등 구조물이나 경계점표지 등에 의하여 구분되는 현실경계 자체에 대하여 다툼이 없는 경우
- 현실경계가 해당 토지의 소유권이 미치는 실제 경계라는 점에 대하여 다툼이 없는 경우
- 지상경계에 대하여 다툼이 없는 경우
Unofficial English translation
• A case where there is no dispute over the actual boundary itself, as demarcated by embankments, walls, or other structures installed on the land, or by boundary markers or the like
• A case where there is no dispute that the actual boundary is the true boundary to which the ownership of the land extends
• A case where there is no dispute over the ground boundary
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
지적재조사법 제14조 제1항 제1호에서 정한 ‘지상경계에 대하여 다툼이 없는 경우’는 ‘토지 지상에 설치된 둑, 담장 등 구조물이나 경계점표지 등에 의하여 구분되는 현실경계 자체에 대하여 다툼이 없는 경우’를 의미하는 것으로 보아야 하고
Unofficial English translation
A "case where there is no dispute over the ground boundary" as provided in Article 14, paragraph (1), subparagraph 1 of the Cadastral Resurvey Act must be regarded as meaning "a case where there is no dispute over the actual boundary itself, as demarcated by embankments, walls, or other structures installed on the land, or by boundary markers or the like," and
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If a neighbouring owner raises a dispute over the actual boundary only after the boundary decision is notified, and no such dispute existed at the time of the readjustment measurement, can that later dispute still defeat item (i), or must it be pursued through the objection procedure?
The remanded judgment of the Seoul High Court, which must decide the case on this reading, would call for this entry to be read again. Any amendment to Article 14 or Article 20 of the Special Act on Cadastral Readjustment, or a later decision defining what counts as a dispute over the surface boundary, would do the same.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
5 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 5 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 5 (factors), axis 6 (relation to precedent), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 5 (Factors): Primary “토지 지상에 설치된 둑, 담장 등 구조물이나 경계점표지 등에 의하여 구분되는 현실경계 자체에 대하여 다툼이 없는 경우 / 현실경계가 해당 토지의 소유권이 미치는 실제 경계라는 점에 대하여 다툼이 없는 경우 / 지상경계에 대하여 다툼이 없는 경우” vs Independent “지적재조사사업의 목적 / 관련 규정의 문언과 체계 / 둑, 담장 등 구조물이나 경계점표지 / 필지별 면적 증감내역을 기준으로 조정금을 산정하여 징수하거나 지급한다.”
Only the structure-based physical boundary factor clearly overlaps. The primary lists the ownership-agreement reading and the textual wording, while the independent lists the purpose, the statutory system, and the adjustment-money provision, so less than half of the factors coincide.
지적재조사사업의 목적Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary reads the holding as setting out a new standard for item (i), while the independent reads the precedent relationship as not confirmable from the text. The difference arises because the holding states requirements without expressly identifying whether earlier decisions were changed or followed.
지적재조사법 제14조 제1항 제1호에서 정한 ‘지상경계에 대하여 다툼이 없는 경우’는 ‘토지 지상에 설치된 둑, 담장 등 구조물이나 경계점표지 등에 의하여 구분되는 현실경계 자체에 대하여 다툼이 없는 경우’를 의미하는 것으로 보아야 하고Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If a neighbouring owner raises a dispute over the actual boundary only after the boundary decision is notified, and no such dispute existed at the time of the readjustment measurement, can that later dispute still defeat item (i), or must it be pursued through the objection procedure?” vs Independent “How should the physical boundary be identified when existing structures and boundary markers indicate different lines?”
The primary asks whether a neighbour's dispute raised only after the boundary decision can defeat item (i) or must go through objection procedure. The independent asks how the physical boundary is identified when structures and markers point to different lines.
지적재조사법 제14조 제1항 제1호에서 정한 ‘지상경계에 대하여 다툼이 없는 경우’는 ‘토지 지상에 설치된 둑, 담장 등 구조물이나 경계점표지 등에 의하여 구분되는 현실경계 자체에 대하여 다툼이 없는 경우’를 의미하는 것으로 보아야 하고, ‘현실경계가 해당 토지의 소유권이 미치는 실제 경계라는 점에 대하여 다툼이 없는 경우’를 의미한다고 볼 수 없다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, Chuncheon Branch, in its judgment of 18 December 2024 (2024Nu520), read the phrase as requiring that, judged at the time the boundary was set, the owners of the land and of the neighbouring land do not dispute that the surface or actual boundary, which differs from what the cadastral register records, is the boundary where ownership of the land extends. On that reading, the boundary decision of 8 February 2022 was unlawful, because the absence of a dispute about the actual boundary itself did not satisfy Article 14(1)(i).
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that this was a misreading of Article 14(1)(i) that affected the outcome. The provision sets the actual boundary that the owner occupies as the first priority precisely so that a boundary long accepted in fact becomes the new cadastral boundary, and it does not bring ownership into the ranking of criteria. Where, before the readjustment measurement under Article 15, the owners disputed that the actual boundary differs from the registered boundary where ownership extends, that is one type of dispute under item (ii), and the assertion itself is only a cause of dispute; any area change can be resolved through the adjustment money, so the Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the owners dispute the actual boundary itself, such as where the dykes, walls or boundary markers that separate it are contested, since item (i) presupposes no such dispute.
- A case in which, before the readjustment measurement under Article 15 of the Special Act on Cadastral Readjustment, the owners already disputed that the actual boundary differs from the registered boundary where ownership extends, which the Court treats as a dispute of the kind in item (ii).
- A case in which the boundary at issue is not the actual boundary of land occupied by its owner, since item (i) sets as its criterion ‘the actual boundary of land occupied by the landowner’.
Record verification notes
Before relying on this decision, map what physically divides the boundary in question, dykes, walls, planted flower beds, an asphalted road or boundary markers, and ask whether anyone disputes that line itself rather than the extent of ownership. Then check the file for any disagreement raised before the readjustment measurement, since that points to item (ii). Finally, look at the area that the boundary decision removes and to Article 20, since the adjustment money, its basis in the published land price or an appraisal, and the review by the readjustment committee are the scheme's answer to a loss of registered area.
From the official text
Points at issue
지적재조사에 관한 특별법 제14조 제1항 제1호에서 정한 ‘지상경계에 대하여 다툼이 없는 경우’의 의미
Unofficial English translation
The meaning of "a case where there is no dispute over the ground boundary" as provided in Article 14, paragraph (1), subparagraph 1 of the Special Act on Cadastral Resurvey
Summary of the holding
지적재조사에 관한 특별법(이하 ‘지적재조사법’이라 한다) 제1조는 "이 법은 토지의 실제 현황과 일치하지 아니하는 지적공부의 등록사항을 바로 잡고 종이에 구현된 지적을 디지털 지적으로 전환함으로써 국토를 효율적으로 관리함과 아울러 국민의 재산권 보호에 기여함을 목적으로 한다."라고 규정하고 있고, 제2조 제2호는 "지적재조사사업이란 「공간정보의 구축 및 관리 등에 관한 법률」 제71조부터 제73조까지의 규정에 따른 지적공부의 등록사항을 조사·측량하여 기존의 지적공부를 디지털에 의한 새로운 지적공부로 대체함과 동시에 지적공부의 등록사항이 토지의 실제 현황과 일치하지 아니하는 경우 이를 바로 잡기 위하여 실시하는 국가사업을 말한다."라고 규정하고 있다. 지적재조사법 제14조 제1항은 "지적소관청은 다음 각 호의 순위로 지적재조사를 위한 경계를 설정하여야 한다."라고 규정하면서 "지상경계에 대하여 다툼이 없는 경우 토지소유자가 점유하는 토지의 현실경계"(제1호), "지상경계에 대하여 다툼이 있는 경우 등록할 때의 측량기록을 조사한 경계"(제2호), "지방관습에 의한 경계"(제3호)로 그 순위를 정하고 있다. 또한 지적재조사법 제20조 제1항은 "지적소관청은 제18조에 따른 경계 확정으로 지적공부상의 면적이 증감된 경우에는 필지별 면적 증감내역을 기준으로 조정금을 산정하여 징수하거나 지급한다."라고 규정하고 있다. 이러한 지적재조사사업의 목적, 관련 규정의 문언과 체계 등을 종합하면, 지적재조사법 제14조 제1항 제1호에서 정한 ‘지상경계에 대하여 다툼이 없는 경우’는 ‘토지 지상에 설치된 둑, 담장 등 구조물이나 경계점표지 등에 의하여 구분되는 현실경계 자체에 대하여 다툼이 없는 경우’를 의미하는 것으로 보아야 하고, ‘현실경계가 해당 토지의 소유권이 미치는 실제 경계라는 점에 대하여 다툼이 없는 경우’를 의미한다고 볼 수 없다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
지적재조사에 관한 특별법 제1조, 제2조 제2호, 제14조 제1항, 제20조 제1항
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger