주위토지통행권 확인 등
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)
A. Attached Form 1, among the 6,133 square meters of C Forest land in Gyeong-gu, is indicated as 19 to 19.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Basic facts
A. On October 1, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Plaintiff on the said land, on the ground that he/she purchased the E Forest Land No. 13,328 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”).
The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on August 30, 201 with respect to C forest land 6,133 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).
B. The land on the part of the plaintiff and the land on the part of the defendant are adjoining to the land on the part of the plaintiff, and there is a passage to the land on the part of the defendant in order to make a contribution from the
The above passage route is a part (B) of 142 square meters on board which connects each point of attached Table 19 through 36, and 19 among the land on the part of the defendant's side in sequence (hereinafter "road along the plaintiff's assertion").
Plaintiff
There are concrete packagings on the side side passage, and the defendant installed steel pipe and wire network on the ground along the side passage of the plaintiff on the ground.
[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's statements and images, witness F, G's testimony, the result of the measurement appraisal commission on May 21, 2014, and the result of fact inquiry, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings, against Gap's non-satisfy, Gap's statements and images, witness F, G's testimony, this court's Daegu North Korean Intellectual Property Office.
2. Determination on the main claim
A. On March 6, 2013, in the course of resolving the assault case between H and the Defendant’s husband I, the Defendant, as the Plaintiff’s wife, concluded an agreement between H and I to use the ground of three meters wide from the entrance and exit entering the Plaintiff’s land on the same boundary of the Defendant’s land as the passage of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant agreement”), instead of using the Plaintiff’s land on the same boundary of the Defendant’s land (hereinafter “instant agreement”), and H neglected the said agreement, and filed the instant lawsuit after changing the name of the owner of the Plaintiff’s land to the Plaintiff, which constitutes abuse of the right of action, and thus, the instant lawsuit is deemed unlawful.
Domins No. 10 to 3, respectively.