토지인도
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, Defendant hereinafter “Defendant”) is part of the land in Macheon City Co., Ltd. to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, Defendant hereinafter “Plaintiff”).
The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be judged together.
1. Land C adjacent to the land D (attached Form) at the time of circulation of the recognition fact, each Plaintiff owns 1/9 shares, and land E, which is the adjacent land, is owned by the Defendant, and the land should pass through each of the above land to pass through the land owned by the Defendant.
[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, result of appraiser F’s appraisal, purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Assertion and determination
A. The plaintiff asserts that the scope of the defendant's right to passage the surrounding notice is limited to 3 meters of the land and D's width, and the plaintiff seeks to deliver the remaining parts.
However, in order to carry a truck, the defendant should have four meters wide, and the defendant should seek confirmation of the right to passage over surrounding land 4 meters wide as a counterclaim.
B. The right of passage over surrounding land, as stipulated in Article 219 of the Civil Act, is particularly recognized as at the risk of damage to the owner of the land under way for the public interest purpose of using the land without a passage necessary for its use, and in determining the width or location of the passage route, the method of causing less damage to the owner of the land under way shall be considered. In a specific case, determination of the degree of necessity should be made based on the geographical features, location, shape and use relation of the land under way according to social norms, surrounding geographical features, location, surrounding geographical state, understanding of the users of the land under way, and all other circumstances.
In order to seek confirmation of the right to passage over surrounding land, the requirements under Article 219 of the Civil Act must be asserted and proved. The method of using the land is permitted to build a passage through which automobiles, etc. can pass, but it is considered to be somewhat necessary for the convenience of their daily life, and the passage of automobiles is not allowed even if it is considered to be somewhat necessary for the convenience of their daily life. This is not the Supreme Court Decision 2005Da70144 Decided June 2, 2006; Supreme Court Decision 2005Da7014 Decided October 21, 1994.