주위토지통행권 확인 등 청구의 소
Of the principal lawsuit of this case, the part of the claim for removal of obstacles shall be dismissed.
The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.
1. Basic facts
A. On December 3, 2009, the Plaintiffs acquired the ownership of GJ 369 square meters in Incheon-gun, Incheon-gun (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”) and a house on the ground.
On February 10, 1998, the Defendant acquired ownership of D large scale 57 square meters and E large scale 140 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”).
B. The Plaintiffs resided in the Plaintiff’s land-based housing and contributed to using Defendant’s land.
C. From July 2018, the Defendant resided in the neighboring H land. Around that time, the Plaintiffs resisted to use the land, and installed container boxes, dogbs, waste materials, pipes, etc. on the said land.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries and images of Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. In a civil lawsuit, the purport of the claim should be specified in detail so that the content and scope of the claim can be clearly identified in the judgment on the legitimacy of the part of the claim for the removal of interference.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da7090, Sept. 8, 2011). However, in the case of the part of the claim for removal of obstacles in the instant lawsuit, the content and scope of the claim are not clearly identified as to which “container boxes, openings, waste materials, and pipes are located,” and as to which “other obstacles interfered with the passage of light,” are not specifically specified.
Therefore, the claim for the removal of a disturbance in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because the purport of the claim is not clearly specified.
3. Judgment on the confirmation of the right to passage over surrounding land and the claim for the prohibition of disturbance among the main claim
(a) If there is no passage between a piece of land and a public road necessary for the use of the surrounding land, the owner of the surrounding land cannot enter the public road, or the cost to reach the public road is excessive, without passing over the surrounding land to the public road;