(영문) 대전고등법원 2018.04.25 2018나10423

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대전고등법원 2018.04.25 2018나10423

담 설치비용 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The defendant.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article

[Supplementary order] Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance, 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, b "C".

Section 3 (f) of the first instance judgment is dismissed as follows.

[Attachment 6] The appraisal map (A), (b), (c) part (attached Form 3 through (h)) of [Attachment 2.5-meter high, and there is a Myanmar pentle, waterway, and tin. Of the above section, approximately approximately 50-meter sections ( approximately 30 meters near the annex 6 and approximately 20 meters between the g and h) are not installed with nish pentle. The following matters are added to b “(C)” respectively in the 4th and 3th, 6th and 21th, 5th, 5th, 5th, 5th, 5th, 5th, 5th, 5th, 5th, 5th, 5th, 100 in the judgment of the first instance. On the other hand, if the materials of a wall are ordinarily higher than ordinary, or a fire wall or any other special facility is installed, it is beyond the ordinary scope of Article 238 of the Civil Act:

'The following is added to not more than 6 pages 6 of the first instance judgment.

【7) The safety net in the attached Form A through C installed by the Plaintiff is a special facility necessary because the Plaintiff’s land is used as a golf course. The third-meter pents that the Plaintiff intends to newly install in the attached Form c through H are higher than the height of the general fence and are expected to be mainly built according to the Plaintiff’s needs. As such, such safety net and pents cannot be deemed as ordinary fences.

There are some parts of the boundary of the instant case where Myanmar is not installed.

Even as seen earlier, the boundary between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s land is clear and definite.

참조조문

-민법 제238조

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2018.01.17 2017가합101793

-서울고등법원 2019.10.31 2019누50306 (1)

-광주지방법원 2016.11.03 2016고정387

-서울고등법원 2018.08.21 2017누89119

-서울고등법원 2019.01.15 2018누68881