토지사용승낙이행 등
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On January 23, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) completed the registration of ownership transfer on D Forest land 6,078 square meters (hereinafter “land owned by the Plaintiff”) on October 16, 2014; and (b) the Defendant is the owner of each real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) adjacent to the instant land owned by the Plaintiff.
B. Nonparty E and F purchased the instant land owned by the Plaintiff under the name of the Plaintiff, who is a relative of E, and decided to run a business of operating a camping site on the said land. However, in order to obtain permission from the competent authorities for development of the said land owned by the said Plaintiff, the consent of the owner of the access road was required.
C. Around September 2014, G, a F’s referred, found the Defendant’s Ha that had a close close relationship with the Defendant, requested the consent to use the part on the access road of this case, and received a written consent to land use attached by the Defendant’s seal impression (hereinafter “written consent to land use of this case”).
However, the location, area of consent, user column, etc. in the above land use consent letter are all the public space, and the next part of the consent letter includes the defendant's address, resident registration number, and name in the letter of consent.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff's assertion was known that the plaintiff, F, and E knew of the fact that they want to develop the land owned by the plaintiff of this case as a camping site, and that it was not so, and the user, etc. issued a written consent of use in blank, and thus, the defendant expressed his intention of approval of land use to the person who intends to engage in development activities using the access road as a passage through the road of this case.
Therefore, the defendant is on the part of the plaintiff when he conducts development activities for camping on the land owned by the plaintiff.