beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.03.23 2017가단525796

통행방해금지

Text

1. The Defendant, in turn, connects each point of the attached drawings, among the 2,228 square meters prior to the Jeon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the land B in Pyeongtaek-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun (hereinafter “instant land”), and the Defendant is the owner of the land E in Pyeongtaek-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, in the vicinity of the Plaintiff.

B. A neighboring residents, including the Plaintiff, have used the portion of 176.10 square meters in a ship (a) connected in order to each point of the land in the Hamyeong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, in the following ways: (a) the portion of the land in question (hereinafter “instant dispute area”) was used as a passage leading to the meritorious deed as follows:

D E

C. The Defendant was sentenced to punishment of a fine of KRW 70,00 on June 15, 2017 in the general traffic obstruction case of Gwangju District Court 2016DaMa1936, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

Even after the defendant's obstruction of traffic was continued, and C.

The main trees described in paragraph (1) are continuously planted until the date on which the argument is closed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 5, each video and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Unless there exist special circumstances such as infringement of the rights, etc. of other persons with respect to a road, a person who intends to pass through a road which is offered to the general public is permitted to pass through the road by the same way as other persons within the scope necessary for daily life, and a third party infringes on the freedom of passage by causing interference with passage of the road and causing interference with daily life, it constitutes a tort under the Civil Act, and the infringing person may be deemed as a person who has infringed on the freedom of passage, and the prohibition of interference with passage can be avoided to prevent the exclusion of the passage

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da63720, Oct. 13, 2011). B.

Facts recognized above and evidence No. 4-2