beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment on this part of the basic facts is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following contents to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Part III of the judgment of the court of first instance is added to the following:
In the event that a passage of at least 3 meters in width connecting K forest and P road is to be installed, it is necessary to allocate the attached Form 2 appraisal of the instant land in order to secure a road width of at least 3 meters in the middle part where the necessary size of K forest and land in the instant land is narrow. In order to secure a road width of at least 3 meters in the middle part where the necessary size of K forest and land in the instant land is narrow, the part “B” part of “b
The third part of the judgment of the first instance [based ground for recognition] is added to “the result of a request for surveying and appraisal to the Vice-Governor of the Korea Land Information Corporation and Busan Vice-Governor of the Supreme Court.”
2. The plaintiffs' assertion
A. Since the Plaintiffs are planning to construct factories in J land for factory and J forest, they need to pass roads with a width of at least 6 meters or a passage road with a width of at least 3 meters that can smoothly pass by motor vehicles under the Building Act.
However, K forest currently used as a passage is so small that the width of the intermediate part is so small that it is impossible to pass through the Korean vehicle, so it is not sufficient to function as an actual passage road.
B. Therefore, with respect to the land of this case, with respect to the land size of 66 square meters, which connects each point of the attached Table 1 appraisal No. 6, 7, 10, and 6, which is necessary for the building permit, the Plaintiff Company confirmed that each of the Plaintiffs has the right to passage, and removed structures such as the steel nets installed on each of the above parts, which interfere with the passage of the Plaintiffs, or interfere with the installation of obstacles or other passage.