주위토지통행권 확인
1. The defendant,
A. Of the land size of 400 square meters in Siljin-si, the Plaintiff is indicated in the attached Form 1, 2, 18, 17, 3, 4, and 1.
1. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the contents and images of evidence Nos. 1 to 3 of fact-finding, and the purport of the whole pleadings as a result of the request for appraisal by the chief of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the branch office of the Korea Land Information Corporation, which
D On October 20, 2014, after acquiring ownership of E, E, 3663 square meters, on June 18, 2015, D divided the said land into E, E, 3263 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) and C, 400 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).
B. In addition, as of February 1, 2015, D submitted a written consent to land use to the effect that D consented to the use of the Defendant’s land as a site for the expansion of a stone collection site, access road, and village, and on February 18, 2016, upon entering into a pre-contract with the Defendant for sale and purchase with the Defendant on March 6, 2018, D completed the registration of ownership transfer on the basis of the sale on March 2, 2018.
C. However, around March 2017, the Defendant obtained permission to engage in development activities necessary to expand access roads to stone collection stations and village paths on condition that land of 11 lots, including the Defendant’s land, including the Defendant’s land, should be donated to the Si at the same time at the time of the completion of construction.
Meanwhile, the Plaintiff purchased the Plaintiff’s land from D on November 22, 2017 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 22, 2017.
E. Of the Defendant’s land, the number of items indicated in the annexed drawing Nos. 1, 2, 18, 17, 3, 4, and 1 are the same as the only passage from the Plaintiff’s land to the meritorious service.
F. However, the Defendant filed an application for a provisional disposition against the Plaintiff seeking the prohibition of passage to the entire Defendant’s land including the instant passage (Seosan Branch of Daejeon District Court 2018Kahap18) but received a decision of dismissal on August 6, 2018 on the ground that “the lack of vindication of the right to the prohibition of passage and the necessity for urgent conservation” was stated.
2. The following circumstances, known by the above findings of the determination, are the same.