경계철거
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the Plaintiff’s assertion emphasized or added by this court, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. As to the claim for exclusion of disturbance under the Road Act and the Private Road Act
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the road under the Road Act or the Private Road Act.
Therefore, the Plaintiff seems to have sought a considerable removal claim from Defendant G as well as from Defendant G’s share portion.
Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal against defendant G is examined as to the remaining part of the defendants' share.
In accordance with Articles 27 and 75 of the Road Act and Articles 9 and 15 of the Private Road Act, facilities cannot be installed on the road at will without restricting or prohibiting the passage of the plaintiff and others. Thus, the defendants shall not remove the iron rail, etc. in this case and shall not obstruct the passage of the plaintiff.
B. 1) First, in order to become a road under the Road Act, it falls under any of the motorways, general national highways, Special Metropolitan City roads, Metropolitan City roads, local roads, local roads, Do roads, Gun roads, and Gu roads as stipulated in Article 2 subparagraph 1 and Article 10 of the Road Act, and the competent authorities should recognize the route thereof pursuant to the relevant provisions. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant road falls under the said road under the said road, and there is no relevant provision in the Building Act or the Private Road Act on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff. Thus, the pertinent provision in the Building Act does not apply mutatis mutandis to the instant road. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s above assertion on the premise that the instant road is a road under the Road Act is not acceptable. 2) Next,
According to the results of fact inquiry of the first instance court on the Gwangju market, this is examined.