beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 21, 1911, Kimhae-si D 1,582: (a) the said D 1,582 P 1,582 was divided into F 165, C 253, and G 1,164 on November 22, 1925; and (b) the instant land was divided into the said land and its land category was changed from the return to the road.
B. Following the death on October 9, 1949 of E, H succeeded to the instant land by the deceased, and on October 29, 2009, on which the deceased on July 5, 2001, on which the deceased on July 5, 2001, H agreed on the division of inherited property between the deceased’s co-inheritors to share the instant land in one-half shares, and on November 16, 2009, each registration for the preservation of ownership was completed in the future of the Plaintiffs as to each of the shares of 1/2 shares among the instant land.
C. As above, the instant land has been used for the passage of neighboring land owners and residents from around November 22, 1925, the land category of which has been changed to a road, and the Defendant recognized the portion of 717 square meters of the instant land among the instant land on November 20, 1995 as the J-line of Gyeongnam-do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do from around that time, and offered it for the general public to pass
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), part of appraiser K's appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The defendant's judgment on the main defense of safety was included in the road during the Japanese occupation period, and pursuant to the Land Expropriation Order during the Japanese occupation period, the person concerned in respect of the expropriation or use of land shall compensate for losses incurred to the public project operator, not the defendant. As such, the compensation for losses is claimed against the defendant on the ground that the defendant occupied the portion of the land of this case and used it as the road, it is reasonable to rent against the defendant.