주위토지통행권확인 등 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant owned 660 square meters prior to the Cheongyang-gun, Cheongyang-gun (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”). The general wooden structure and other 1st century on the ground owned by the Defendant, and the Defendant’s dynamic G was owned by 88.92 square meters of a single house on the one-story roof (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s building”). However, on August 8, 2016, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the said land and the building through a voluntary auction.
B. The Defendant owns the Plaintiff’s land at 2812 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) prior to Cheongyang-gun, Cheongyang-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, where the Plaintiff’s land is sealed in the form of a “three-dimensional”.
C. The Defendant’s land adjoins to the northwest, and adjoins to the southwest-west (hereinafter “instant package”), and the above package is connected to the passage of the land of the Cheongyang-gun I and J, Chungcheongnamyang-gun, the ownership of Nonparty H.
After the Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff’s land and building, the Defendant, among the Defendant’s land, installed a steel door near (2) part of 108 square meters in the ship connecting each point of the attached Form No. 39, 52, 51, 10, 39, which led to the contribution of the northwest, among the Defendant’s land (hereinafter “instant road”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 10, 13 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8, 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings as a result of the on-site verification by this Court,
2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant allowed G, the moving owner of the plaintiff's building, to pass the road of this case, but after the plaintiff was awarded a successful bid, the plaintiff set up a steel door on the road of this case and obstructed the plaintiff's passage.
However, the Plaintiff cannot use the passage of this case to contribute to the Plaintiff’s land without using it.
Since the packaging road of this case is passing through H's private land and H objects to passage, it cannot be used as a passage.
Therefore, the defendant has the right to pass over the surrounding land to the plaintiff.