beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 15, 2009, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer at the ratio of one half of each of the shares on the ground of sale on October 19, 2009 with respect to the land of 618 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. On October 15, 197, the instant land was part of the land, which was divided into 33 lots, such as F.F. 148 square meters, from the land in Gangnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant land before the instant subdivision”) by D, which was the previous owner, and D was divided into 148 square meters, from the land before the instant subdivision. On October 24, 197, the land category of the instant land, other than the instant land, was changed from the site to the road, and the remaining land divided was entirely sold between December 197 and December 197, and the building was successively constructed on the land sold by the owner.
C. The instant land is located in a narrow and long-term form, where the center of the divided land is located in the form of Twitter, and there was no other passage through which the land sold after subdivision was able to contribute without passing through the instant land, and thus, it was difficult to construct a building on the ground of the divided land if the instant land is not used as a passage. In fact, the instant land was divided from the land before subdivision to be used as an essential road for the passage of the owners of the land sold to others. Since its use as a road, D, the former owner, did not raise an objection to the use of the instant land as a road for a long time.
D As a result of the divided sale of the land before the subdivision of this case, users of the remaining land partitioned and sold were naturally used as a passage through the land of this case, and it became a concrete package. Around around 1988 and around 1990, the Defendant’s permission, the telegraph poles and utility poles of reinforced concrete steel structure were respectively installed on the ground of the land of this case, and the land of this case was from the Defendant.