logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.05.13 2014가단4401
주위토지통행권확인
Text

1. Of F forest land 85,157 square meters in Pakistan-si, each of the annexed drawings 88 through 97, 30, 98 through 100, 26, 101 through 116, and 88;

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of G forest land 13,124 square meters (hereinafter “instant G land”) in Pakistan-si, and the Defendants are the owners of F forest land 85,157 square meters in the same place (hereinafter “instant F land”).

B. The G land of this case is the land enclosed by the instant F land, the land of H in the same place, and the land of I in the same place.

Of the instant F land, the part “B” in paragraph (1) of this case and the part “B” in paragraph (1) of this case is 964 square meters wide by a non-packagedd soil road with a width of four meters (hereinafter “instant current road”). If the instant road runs along the said road, it can be deemed to have contributed to the instant G land.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the result of the on-site verification by this court, the result of the survey and appraisal by the appraiser J, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the allegations and the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff can recognize the Plaintiff’s right of passage over surrounding land in accordance with Article 219(1) of the Civil Act regarding the current status of this case.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the G land in this case in order to build a convalescent hospital, and the present status of the instant G land in this case is lost by earth and sand, making it impossible to pass by the vehicle difficult. Thus, the Plaintiff’s right to pack the present status of the Plaintiff’s right to passage over surrounding land does not include the right to pack the present status of the Plaintiff’s right to passage over surrounding land in this case.

Therefore, the issue of this case is whether the plaintiff's right of passage over surrounding land is included in the current status of the present status road of this case.

Since the right of passage over surrounding land is limited to the use of the surrounding land for the use of the land without a passage necessary for the use of the land between the public road and the public road, the scope of the right of passage is not only necessary for the owner of the right of passage but also within the scope of the place and method where the owner of the surrounding land suffers the lowest damage. Such scope is ultimately a topographical and location phenomenon in light

arrow