[원상복구비용][공2003.5.15.(178),1063]
[1] The meaning and contents of "Interference" in the right to claim the removal of interference based on ownership
[2] The case holding that even if the owner of the land created by the reclamation of garbage has filled out garbage which did not consent to the reclamation, the right to claim the removal of disturbance based on the ownership cannot be exercised on the ground that the waste continues to be a separate infringement on the ownership
[1] In the claim for the exclusion of interference based on ownership, the term "in the claim for exclusion of interference" refers to a continued infringement that is now in progress, and it is different from the concept of "damage that occurs in the past and is already terminated". Thus, the claim for exclusion of interference based on ownership does not include the removal of the result of interference (which constitutes the area of compensation for damage).
[2] The case holding that even if garbage is buried in the land created by the reclamation of garbage and the owner of the land did not consent to the reclamation, this constitutes damage suffered by the owner as a result of the illegal reclamation works in the past, and that the garbage cannot be claimed for removal of interference based on the ownership on the ground that it cannot be deemed that the waste continues to be a separate infringement on the ownership of the land
[1] Article 214 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 214 of the Civil Code
Plaintiff (Attorney Young-chul et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Gwangju-si (Law Firm Dasan General Law Office, Attorneys Kim Li-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na11682 delivered on December 17, 2002
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to the court below's findings of facts, the plaintiff's land was owned jointly by six persons, such as the plaintiff and non-party 1, and the plaintiff's ownership transfer registration was completed on October 27, 1997. The original ground of this case is less than 3 meters away from adjoining land, and the land was left neglected as yellow land adjoining to the closed river, and it is hard to find that there was a high-quality waste reclamation claim for the removal of waste from 1,62 square meters before the 1,000 square meters (hereinafter "the land of this case"). Since the plaintiff's 2,000 square meters of this case's 5,000 square meters of this case's 2,000 square meters of this case's 7,000 square meters of this case's 5,000 square meters of this case's 1,00022, and it is hard to say that the land of this case is owned by the plaintiff's 1,000 square meters of land.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)