토지사용승낙
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The court's explanation of this part of the basic facts is the same as the statement of the corresponding column of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) E agreed with I at the time of selling a factory site owned by the Defendant to I, and the Plaintiff’s owner of the land owned by I at the time of transferring the ownership of the Defendant’s road to I without compensation, and at the later time the Plaintiff’s owner of the land requests I to consent to use the road owned by the Defendant, and if I sells the road owned by the Defendant to a third party, a third party agreed to give consent to the use of the Plaintiff’s land owned by the Defendant without any condition. In addition, according to the above agreement, I agreed to give consent without any condition where the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s owner of the land owned by the Plaintiff request the Defendant to consent to use the road owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant agreement”).
The agreement of this case is a form of contract for the owner of land owned by the plaintiff who is not a party to the contract, i.e., a third party, and thus, the third party has the right to directly request the consent to use the road owned by the defendant to the extent that it does not infringe on the ownership of the road owned by the defendant. Therefore, the defendant bears the duty to consent to use the road owned by the plaintiff in applying for development activities and construction permission on the land owned by the plaintiff. 2) Even if the defendant's obligation to consent is not recognized under the agreement of this case, it is a situation in which motor vehicle and horse traffic is necessary to develop the land owned by the plaintiff, and if the road owned by the defendant is not used by the defendant, it is impossible to obtain permission to develop the above land, and due to