logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 서산지원 2018.01.30 2017가단2160
주위토지통행권확인
Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant, the appointed party)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant, the designated party) and the designated party.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiffs”) are the owners of each land indicated below (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs’ land”).

The name-owned land (only 50 square meters in Seosan) is 1F G 3,058 square meters on September 12, 2014 (Gift) 2H 1,254 square meters on September 12, 2014, and 1/2 shares in J. 1/717 square meters on February 7, 2004 (Sale) 2,870 square meters on May 29, 2014 (Sale 2,954 square meters on May 29, 2014) 4 M. 2,954 square meters on August 14, 2014 (Sale 5 P. 2,000 P. 3,376 square meters on August 19, 204 (Sale) 3,500 square meters on May 29, 2014 (Sale) 3,508 square meters on August 3, 2015).

B.Y. On January 18, 2002, Z acquired the ownership of 12,850 square meters in Seosan, Seosan City L salt farm, and 53,527 square meters in W salt farm (hereinafter “the above land”) prior to the subdivision, Y and Z sold it to X and H on February 7, 2004 and completed the registration of ownership transfer.

The Plaintiffs’ land was divided from the pre-division land, and the Plaintiffs acquired the Plaintiffs’ land by directly or before the Appointor X-H.

C. Y. In order to purchase the land before subdivision and to pass through the public service, Z opened a passage through which 1,603 square meters of land (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”), AA, and AB owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “AC land”) pass through the AC answer 4,132 square meters (hereinafter “AC land”).

(Plaintiffs asserted that the passage has been established and used for a long time since several hundred years, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it).

As of the date of closing argument of this case, the plaintiffs or lessees of the land of the plaintiffs use the plaintiffs' land as a new marry farm without obtaining permission under Article 41 of the Fisheries Act, and it does not exceed 36,926 square meters for the new marry.

arrow