beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiffs own 101,921 square meters in Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-gun, and 24,336 square meters in J farm site, and 16,205 square meters in K forest, based on their respective shares of 1/4.
(hereinafter referred to as “land owned by the plaintiffs”) B.
Defendant E owns 2,067 square meters for L farm land, 939 square meters for G farm land, 1,063 square meters for M farm land, and 28,683 square meters for N farm land. Defendant F owns 2,817 square meters prior to H.
(hereinafter referred to as “the land owned by the Defendant”) C.
Part of the land owned by the Defendants is used as a road, and the land owned by the Plaintiffs is connected with the service through the Defendants’ land.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-3, Gap evidence 2-1-3, Gap evidence 3-1-2, and the purport of whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The Defendants’ land is the only road connected to the public service on the land owned by the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs have the right to passage over the surrounding land on the land owned by the Defendants.
B. Nevertheless, the Defendants interfere with the passage of the Plaintiffs by installing a steel entry door on their own land.
C. Therefore, as stated in the purport of the claim, the Defendants are not obliged to obstruct the Plaintiffs’ passage or vehicle passage with respect to the land owned by the Defendants, and to remove iron bars installed on the said land.
3. The reasoning of the judgment below and the evidence No. 4-1 and No. 2 are insufficient to acknowledge that the plaintiffs have the right of passage to the surrounding part of the land owned by the defendants in relation to the land owned by the plaintiffs, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Furthermore, the images of No. 5-1 and No. 2 merely interfered with the passage of the Defendants’ land as claimed by the Plaintiffs.
It is not sufficient to recognize that a steel door has been installed on the land, and there is no evidence to recognize it otherwise.