통행방해금지 등
1. The plaintiffs and the plaintiff AP's succeeding intervenors, the plaintiff AR, the succeeding intervenors, and the plaintiffs and the plaintiff AP.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the instant case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments as to the cause of the claim added in the trial by the Plaintiffs, the succeeding intervenors, the succeeding intervenors, and the succeeding intervenors (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) of the Plaintiffs, and the succeeding intervenors of the Plaintiff AP, and the succeeding intervenors of the Plaintiff Q, as it is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination as to the plaintiffs' ground of claim added in the trial
A. (1) Although the Defendant did not recognize the exclusive, exclusive, and exclusive right to benefit from the infringement of the Plaintiffs’ right to personality on the instant road based on the ownership of the housing site, the Defendant parked the instant vehicle on the instant road for a long time, and parked the instant road by using another vehicle, thereby hindering the passage of the Plaintiffs and the use of the instant road (which is anticipated to obstruct the foregoing), and installing the instant bulletin board on the instant road to make it impossible to use the waste separation removal work box located later than the place of installation. This is an infringement on the Plaintiffs’ personality rights, which are the owners of the adjacent site of the instant road.
BB and the defendant alleged that the land in the Seocho Housing Complex of this case is contrary to the principle of the good faith and the principle of the gold speech, despite the agreement that only the plaintiffs agree to sell the land in the Seocho Housing Complex to the plaintiffs and allow them to use the road of this case as exclusive use, they obstruct the use of the road of this case. This goes against the principle of the good faith and the principle of the gold speech.
Article 2 (1) of the former Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter “former Farmland Reform Act”) provides that the road of this case and the site of the Seocho Housing Complex in both sides of the said road shall be specified in Article 2 (1) of the former Farmland Reform Act (hereinafter “former Farmland Reform Act”).