logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.07.05 2018나1350
토지사용료
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal or addition as stated in paragraph (2) among the grounds of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

A. On the 2nd page of the first instance judgment, “I” is deemed to be “C”, “O” is deemed to be “O”, “F” is deemed to be “O”, “F” is deemed to be “O”, and “new route” shall be deemed to be “entry route” in the 4th page 14-15.

B. The following is added between 5 pages 8 and 9 of the first instance judgment.

"Nor.e., the land in this case appears to be the only passage to the Defendant's land, and if it cannot be used as a passage, it would be difficult to use the Defendant's land for which development activities were permitted based on D's consent to use the land. Although the land category of the Defendant's land was changed from the site to the site, it would be difficult to view that there was a significant change in the land use status by doing so. ⑤ It seems that the parties who traded the land in this case was well aware of the fact that the land in this case is being used as an access road for the Defendant's land, and such situation seems to have been reflected in the sale price in the transaction relation of surrounding land including the land in this case. 6) Since Article 109 (3) 1 of the Local Tax Act and Article 108 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provide that the road under the Road Act and the private road established for the purpose of free passage of the general public, it is difficult to accept the allegation that only the Plaintiff paid the property tax without imposing it.

C. On the 5th anniversary of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the 5th to 12th is as follows.

arrow