주위토지통행권 확인
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On August 14, 2008, the Plaintiff and the Defendants, who were co-owners of D Forest land of 15,792 square meters (hereinafter “land before subdivision”) in Jeonju District Court 2007Kadan41906 (hereinafter “previous lawsuit”), were adjusted to divide the land before subdivision into the Plaintiff’s co-ownership, and the Plaintiff divided the land of 11,318 square meters of D Forest land in Jeonju-gun, Jeonju-gun (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) into the Defendants’ co-ownership and the land of 4,474 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”).
B. Of the Defendants’ land, the portion of the ship (B) connected in sequence 13 to 21, and 13 indicated in the annexed reference drawing exists a passage to which five tons of the five tons of the motor vehicles can move.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3 evidence, Eul 1 evidence or images, the result of the appraisal commission to the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) At the time of conciliation in the previous lawsuit, the Plaintiff understood that the Defendants, at the time of conciliation in the previous lawsuit, have access roads available to the public map necessary for the Plaintiff’s construction of a building on the Plaintiff’s land, and adjusted to divide the land before subdivision into a lower area than the size according to the Plaintiff’s share in the land before subdivision. In order to newly construct a warehouse, etc., the access roads with a width of at least 4 meters are very urgent. The Defendants are the part of the part of the land in which the Defendants connected 30 square meters in line with the Defendants’ land (hereinafter “the part of the land in dispute of this case”).
2) The Defendants asserted that the Defendants are obligated to confirm the existence of the right of passage over surrounding land and to express their consent to the use of land for the purpose of the opening of access roads to the land in the dispute of this case. (2) The Defendants asserted that there are six graves on the Defendants’ land, and the size of the Plaintiff’s land was small at the time of the adjustment
(b) Determination 1) Whether there exists a right of passage over surrounding land.