Details of ownership of a person who acquired the land provided as a passage leading to the contribution of residents, which is a a alley of the site for sale in lots;

Any person who has acquired the land, which was provided for the passage through the public service of the neighboring residents, as the alley of the site for sale in lots, is obligated to allow the neighboring residents to pass the land through the passage, and the exclusive and exclusive right to use the land shall not be exercised.

Article 211 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and nine others

Seoul Central District Court (73Gahap4271) in the first instance trial

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

The defendants shall not interfere with the fence construction installed by the plaintiff on the straight line connecting the points of 1,2,3, and 4 of the attached drawings of 83-5, Seongbuk-dong, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul with the same drawing indication 132 square meters (132 square meters) among the parts inside the line connected in sequence 1,2,3, and 4 of the attached drawings.

the Plaintiff 132 E.W.

Defendant 2 removed a mentbroke fenced with a thickness of 1.85 meters at a height of 1.85 meters 0.1 meters 0.4 meters thick and deliver 1.3 square meters of the above site, which is part of the line connecting each point of 5,6,7,9 in sequence 1.3 square meters;

Defendant 3 removed a red brick fence with a thickness of 1.7 meters 0.1 meter in length of 15.4 meters at a height of 1.7 meters constructed on the ground level 0.9 square meters on the part of the line, which connects each point of 7,8,9 of the same drawing, and delivers 0.9 square meters of the above site.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants, and a declaration of provisional execution

The same shall apply to the order.

According to the evidence No. 1 and No. 2 of this case, the above 1 and No. 2 of this case are the owners of non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 of this case are the owners of non-party 1 and the non-party 2 of this case are the owners of non-party 1 and the non-party 2 of this case are the owners of non-party 2 of this case's non-party 1 and the non-party 3 of this case's non-party 1 and the non-party 2 of this case's non-party 1 and the non-party 2 of this case's non-party 1 and the non-party 2 of this case's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1 and the defendant 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's right of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff on the premise that the plaintiff as the owner of the land of this case has exclusive and exclusive rights to use and benefit from the land of this case is dismissed because there is no need to reach a determination on the remaining points, and therefore, the decision of the court below which differs in this conclusion is unfair. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is justified, and the judgment of the court below is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the cost of lawsuit.

Judges Lee Dong-ho (Presiding Judge)