건물등철거
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. The Plaintiff is an owner of a 6600 square meters of land for a factory in Kimpo-si (hereinafter “D land”).
B. The Defendant is the owner of Kimpo-si C road C. 84 square meters (hereinafter “C land”).
[Defendant] On January 9, 2015, 560 square meters before Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si (hereinafter “F land”).
The purchase of land and acquired ownership after completing the registration of ownership transfer on April 7, 2015. Thereafter, the land C was divided into F land on December 1, 2015, and the F land was divided into F land on December 1, 2015, and on December 8, 2015, the G G G land on December 8, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “G land”).
(C) was merged.
D The location of land and C shall be as shown in a certified copy of the cadastral map in attached Form.
(A) Of the certified copies of the cadastral map in the attached Form, the fact that there is no dispute over the G land (based on recognition), Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
A. Of the land owned by the Defendant, the part of the land owned by the Defendant, which was connected in sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, 16, 18, 19, 19, and 1 of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 1, 4, 16, 18, 19, among the land owned by the Defendant
The plaintiff seeks confirmation of the existence of the right to passage over surrounding land against the defendant.
The Defendant, among the land in C, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 20 the boundary stone, 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14, 15, 17, and 1 on the land of 32 square meters in sequence connected with the boundary stone, 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14, 15, 17, and 1. The Defendant shall remove the above facilities that obstruct the Plaintiff’s right of passage over surrounding land, and the Defendant is sufficiently likely to obstruct the passage of the facilities in the future, and thus, the Defendant is also entitled to prior prohibition of interference with passage.
B. Even if the plaintiff did not have the right to passage over the surrounding land, the exercise of the defendant's right is only causing pain to the plaintiff and causing damages to the plaintiff, and there is no benefit to the plaintiff, and it constitutes abuse of rights because it is contrary to objective social order.
Therefore, it is true.