배수관철거 청구의 소
1. The part against the plaintiffs in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.
2. The defendant,
A. The plaintiff C and D are in harmony with the plaintiff C and D. 3.
In determining the cause of the claim, the fact that the Defendant laid underground drainage pipes of 1,500 meters in diameter and diameter and 21,322 square meters in Jansi-si and Jansung-si jointly owned by the Plaintiff C, D, etc., and the Plaintiff E, F, and G, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “the instant forest and the instant forest and the instant forest and the instant land”), under the title of the said forest and the instant forest and the instant land, the land number and land category are omitted and specified only with a parcel number and land category below Luri-ri, and the Plaintiff 1 through 12, and 1 of the attached Table 1 among the I forest, J forest and the instant land, including the I forest, J forest, and K forest and the instant land, connected each of the instant land, in sequence with each of the instant land and the instant land. The fact that: (a) there is no dispute between the parties to the instant land; or (b) the result of the survey and appraisal by the Plaintiff 1 through 3, the first instance trial and the entire pleadings of M.
According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to remove the drainage pipes of this case laid underground in the above Section 1, 2, and c, among the I forest and J forest, to the plaintiff C, the co-owner of the I forest and J forest, and remove the drainage pipes of this case among the I forest and J forest, and transfer the part of land to the plaintiff E, F, and G, the co-owner of the K forest, and remove the drainage pipes of this case laid underground in the above section of the K forest and deliver the above land.
The gist of the Defendant’s assertion regarding the Defendant’s defense was that the Defendant consented to the instant drainage pipe 1,500 meters in diameter to the Defendant.
In the first time, the Defendant planned to lay underground conduits of 600 meters in diameter, but subsequently, after consultation with the Plaintiffs, the Defendant decided to lay underground drainage pipes of this case at a diameter of 1,500 meters in diameter in order to utilize the drainage pipes laid underground if each of the lands of this case owned by the Plaintiffs is developed later.
Even if the consent of the plaintiffs is not recognized, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is against the principle of good faith and constitutes abuse of rights.
Facts of recognition
Gap evidence Nos. 9 through 14, 18, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, and 14 (including branch numbers for those with numbers).