beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 25,667,660 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related amount from February 1, 2013 to May 30, 2013.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff’s ownership of the Seojin-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 800 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) and the land A and B (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) are owned by the Defendant.
B. On July 7, 1987, the Jeonjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Eandong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City road and the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “transfer road”) owned the Plaintiff (former mutual taxi) and the limited liability company and the limited liability company’s new traffic. On September 11, 1997, the ownership of new transport owned by the limited liability company.
C. The plaintiff is passing through the part of the land of this case since the transfer road became a new traffic ownership company.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 (including virtual number), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. In a case where a part of the land owned by the same person as a judgment on the claim of a principal lawsuit is assigned and thus the land cannot be contributed, the right to passage over the surrounding land for the land is not recognized only to the previous land owned by the transferor prior to the partial transfer, and the right to passage over the surrounding land for the land owned by another person is partially transferred, and the right to passage over the surrounding land without compensation includes not only the case where a part of the land is transferred but also the case where a part of the land owned by the same person is transferred (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da22906, Dec. 14, 1993; 2004Da6589, Mar. 10, 2005; 204Da655896, Mar. 10, 2005). According to the above findings, since the right to passage over the surrounding land owned by the same person is recognized as a right to passage over the surrounding land by the transferor prior to the partial transfer, the Plaintiff’s right to passage cannot be asserted.
As to this, the plaintiff is the defendant of this case.