주위토지통행권확인 등
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On April 15, 201, the Plaintiff divided the previous 2,195 square meters into C, the previous 1,421 square meters and the previous 774 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant Plaintiff”) with respect to the previous 1,421 square meters and the previous 774 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”).
B. On May 6, 2011, the Plaintiff sold 1,421 square meters to E prior to South-Namnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and E sold it again to the Defendant on or around May 6, 2011.
On May 9, 2011, the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale as of May 6, 2011, with respect to 1,421 square meters prior to the above C.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) 1,421 square meters prior to C. D.
On June 8, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) applied for permission to engage in development activities and permission to construct a new house on the Plaintiff’s land; and (b) obtained each of the above permission from the Gun of South and North Korea around that time, by designating the part (Ga) (hereinafter “instant passage”) connected in sequence with each of the following points as an access road among the Defendant’s land.
The Plaintiff newly constructed a 9.54 square meter for a single-story house on the ground of the Plaintiff’s instant land in accordance with each permission, and completed the registration of initial ownership on December 6, 201.
In addition, on December 7, 201, the land category of the Plaintiff was changed from “B” to “B” to “B”.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3 and 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff used the instant passage as a passage through which vehicles could pass. The Defendant discarded the instant passage around May 20, 2017 and created a dry field.
The plaintiff's land has no other place to use it as a passage except for the passage of this case, and the plaintiff has a right to passage over surrounding land where the passage of this case can be used as a passage, such as the cost of the plaintiff's use of a passage other than the passage of this case.