통행권확인
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On June 4, 2009, the Plaintiff purchased 632 square meters, 652 square meters, and 428 (428 square meters, 552, 552, prior to the F. The Plaintiff’s assertion that it had been admitted to the Plaintiff’s use of the “(a) portion” as stated in D’s claim, where the only access road to the said land was installed, (hereinafter “instant land portion”).
However, the Defendant purchased the instant land portion from D around October 11, 2013 and completed the registration of ownership transfer therefor. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to grant the Plaintiff consent to the instant land portion.
Therefore, we seek confirmation of the right of passage against the defendant.
2. The Plaintiff obtained D’s consent to the instant land portion from the former owner.
Even if the defendant purchased the land portion of this case from D, the plaintiff cannot oppose the defendant under such agreement unless there are special circumstances such as allowing the defendant to purchase and purchase the land portion at the time of purchase from D, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the existence of such special circumstance even in accordance with any evidence submitted by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff asserts that the part of the land of this case was used in cement packing prior to the purchase by the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff has the right to pass over it. However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the former owner of the land of this case has permanently renounced the right to use the land of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit without examining the remaining points.
3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.