logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.19 2015가단5365271
주위토지통행권확인
Text

1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 18, 2005, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer each of 1/2 shares as to the land owned by the Plaintiffs, based on sale and purchase.

B. The Defendants own a 2116 square meter (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”) in each 1/3 share of the Gyeonggi-gu Gyeonggi-do, the Gyeonggi-do, the Gyeonggi-do, which is adjacent to the land owned by the Plaintiffs, and located between the 823 square meter (hereinafter “instant ditch”) and the 823 square meter (hereinafter “instant ditch”).

C. The location and status of each of the above lands owned by the plaintiffs and the defendants are as shown in the annexed cadastral status survey performance map.

The land owned by the plaintiffs is classified as a answer, but there is a swimming without forming a farmer's residence, and the plaintiffs have formulated a new construction plan on the land above the future but has not yet received construction permission.

In order for the plaintiffs to obtain building permission, separate approval for change of purpose of occupation and use for the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages, securing roads with a width of at least four meters, and obtaining consent

E. In order to enter the land owned by the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs set the purpose of use of the said 36 square meters out of the instant ditches connected to the said land as farmland entry roads, and obtained approval for use from Yangyang-gun during a period from January 8, 2013 to December 31, 2017, and entered the land owned by the Defendants via the instant ditches. There was no fact that the said passage itself was obstructed by the Defendants.

F. The passage of this case for which the plaintiffs sought confirmation of the passage right by the lawsuit of this case is 4.5 meters wide and 122 square meters wide. The passage of this case is 4.5 meters wide and 122 square meters wide.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, Gap evidence 9-1 to 4, Gap evidence 11, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 4-1.

arrow