[방해제거][하집1992(2),16]
The case dismissing the claim for transfer of ownership right based on the right to claim for removal of obstruction of ownership, on the ground that although there are somewhat little inconvenience in the use of adjacent private land or its ground buildings due to the electric poles already installed, it does not reach an illegal infringement exceeding several people's
Article 214 of the Civil Act
Kim Dong-dong
Korea Electric Power Corporation
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff the previous shares established by the defendant in front of the 763 site in Sincheon-dong, Sincheon-dong, 763, the boundary line between the above site and the site in the same 763-7.
1. As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff purchased a site of 763 meters, Sincheon-dong, Sincheon-dong, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant land”) which was created by the said Sinung-gun in the course of a land readjustment project from the non-party Singu, 1986, and newly constructed a single-story building on that ground. Since the Defendant should not interfere with the exercise of ownership of adjoining land in the construction of the former land, it should be installed in front of the boundary line of the land of this case and its adjoining to the land of this case, and should not interfere with the use of and profit from the instant land of this case, even though it should not interfere with the construction of the former land of this case and its adjoining to the land of this case, the Defendant is obligated to remove interference with the Plaintiff’s ownership due to the construction of the former land of this case, and thus the former boundary line of each of the above land of this case by asserting that there is a duty to remove interference with the Plaintiff’s building.
2. I think, as argued by the plaintiff, it is desirable for the defendant to select a location which does not cause any damage to others as much as possible in the case of the installation of the former owner, or which is the lowest damage. However, even if there are some inconvenience in the use of the land or a building already installed on the former owner, so long as it goes beyond the limit generally required by social norms and it does not reach an unlawful infringement on the ownership of the adjacent land or a building on the ground, it is inevitable to accept it, and it cannot be claimed for the transfer theory based on the right to claim the removal of obstruction of ownership. In this case, as to whether the defendant's construction of the former owner interferes with the ownership of the land or a building on the ground of this case, even if it is based on the plaintiff's assertion itself, it is not established on the land of this case, which is owned by the former owner, and there is a little inconvenience in the use of the above ground building, it cannot be viewed that there is an unlawful infringement on the ownership of the land of this case and its ground, or that there is an unlawful obstacle to the extent generally required.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that the former owner established by the defendant interferes with the ownership of the land of this case and the building on its ground, which is owned by the plaintiff, is dismissed without any reason to further examine, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to
Judges Cho Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)