토지 사용료 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are dismissed, respectively.
2. Of the costs of lawsuit.
A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the Plaintiff’s land located in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, 628 square meters, and the Defendant is the owner of D large scale 278 square meters and its ground building.
B. The instant dispute land is located in the passage leading to the Defendant’s house, and is located in the place where the village residents, including the Defendant, use it as a road.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap1-5 evidence, result of on-site inspection by this court, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit
A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant occupies the land in the dispute of this case without permission as the cause of the principal claim. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the usage fees as stated in the purport of the claim of this lawsuit.
B. In full view of the court’s results of the on-site inspection of this case, although the land in the dispute of this case is located in the passage for the opening of the defendant’s house, it can be recognized that not only the defendant but also many and unspecified village residents use the land for passage. Thus, the plaintiff’s above assertion that the defendant exclusively occupies the land in the dispute of this case cannot be accepted.
(1) As to whether the frequency of use of the land in the dispute of this case by the Defendant is a certain degree, it is difficult to verify the present degree of proof of the Plaintiff’s assertion, and eventually, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is dismissed in its entirety).
A. The defendant asserts that the main claim is that the right of passage over 20 years has been established around the land of this case.
However, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant or village residents continued possession of the land in the form of continuous and express expression for not less than 20 years solely on the basis of the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 9-25, and on the basis of the statement in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 10 of the defendant's submission, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.