beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2020.08.20 2019가단126365

주위토지통행권 확인의 소

Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B and Defendant C, among the lands listed in the attached Form 1’s “List of Real Estate” paragraph (1), shall be as indicated in attached Form 2.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of F forest land 9,322 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”). Defendant B and C are the co-owners (ownership of each 1/2 shares) of G miscellaneous land in Seocheon-si adjacent to it (hereinafter “G land”) and Defendant E are the owners of land of 3,583 square meters (hereinafter “H land”) prior to Sincheon-si adjacent to it.

B. Although there are national highways I, adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land, but among them, land G land, H land, J prior to Pocheon-si, Kcheon-do, etc. is not adjoining to their meritorious services.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. Of the land listed in attached Form 1’s attached Table 1’s List of Real Estate Claim by the Plaintiff, part (A) part (a) of 25 square meters (hereinafter “part (a)”) connected with each point of attached Table 2’s attached Table 5, 6, 7, 8, and 5 and the land listed in attached Table 1’s List of Real Estate List 1 (“Real Estate List”) indicated in attached Table 2’s attached Table 1’s attached Table 1’s attached Table 2’s attached Table 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 1’s attached Table 1’s attached Table 2’ (b) is the only passage for the Plaintiff to contribute to the Plaintiff’s land, and the length for the former owner of the Plaintiff’s land.

B. On the part of the Plaintiff’s assertion, there was no passage for the Defendants, and on the part of (a) and (b), the Plaintiff did not live for more than ten years on the Plaintiff’s land.

Even if the Plaintiff uses the parts of paragraphs (a) and (b) as a passage, it is not possible to immediately pass through the road, but it is a reason why the Plaintiff could not pass through as well as the land for which the Plaintiff could not pass as a public road, even though the Plaintiff used the parts of paragraphs (a) and (b) as a passage.

3. Determination

A. The right of passage over surrounding land, as stipulated in Article 219 of the Civil Act, is at the risk of damage to the owner of the land, for the purpose of the public interest, which is the use of the land without a passage required for its use.

참조조문