주위토지통행권확인
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit;
The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be judged together.
The basic facts are the Plaintiff’s ownership of the 2,800 square meters prior to C in Jeju, and the 992 square meters of forest B in Jeju, adjacent to the said land, is the ownership of the Defendant.
Plaintiff
The location of the land owned and the land owned by the defendant shall be as follows:
The Plaintiff currently uses the part of the above photographic sign “existing passage” as a passage on the land owned by the Defendant.
[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 to Eul evidence 1-4, and Eul evidence 2-1 to Eul evidence 1-4, and the result of this court's on-site survey and appraisal on this court's request for a survey and appraisal on the Korea Land Information Corporation, the plaintiff's assertion about the whole purport of the pleadings is cultivating the land owned by the plaintiff. However, it is most appropriate to enter the land owned by the defendant by the plaintiff through the part connecting the point of 1,23,25,24, and 1, which are linked to the land owned by the defendant. The damage is the lowest to the defendant.
Judgment
Since the right of passage over surrounding land is particularly recognized at the risk of damage to the owner of the land under way for the public interest, which is the use of the land without a passage necessary for its use between the public interest and the public interest, the method of determining the width, location, etc. of the passage road shall be considered less than the least damage to the owner of the land under way. In a specific case where a certain degree is to be considered to be necessary, it shall be determined based on the geographical, location, and use of the land under ordinary social norms, neighboring geographical, location, and use relationship, neighboring geographical features, and understanding of the
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Da75300, 75317, 75324, Jun. 11, 2009; 2012Da88990, Nov. 28, 2013). The circumstances revealed in the above facts are as follows.
The Plaintiff has already used the “existing passage” portion of the land owned by the Defendant as a passage.
The existing passage road is three meters wide, which is cement.