logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2017.10.19 2016가단109109
주위토지통행권 확인
Text

1. The plaintiffs' respective claims against the defendants are dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Plaintiff A is the owner of 4612 square meters prior to the N, Jincheon-gun N, Jincheon-gun, and the Plaintiff B is the owner of one parcel prior to O, and the Defendants are the owners of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”). The deceased P is the heir of the network P.

In order for the plaintiffs to pass through and use the above lands, they should pass through each of the instant real estate owned by the defendants, which is a customary road and the only passage to use the land so far. Under the name of Defendant G, etc. to raise salt from around 2015, each of the instant real estate owned by the plaintiffs, as the plaintiffs installed a steel net for each of the instant real estate and obstructed the passage of the plaintiffs.

Accordingly, the Defendants confirm that each part of the claim(1) of the claim(s) against the Defendants (hereinafter “instant passage”) has the right to passage, and seek to prevent the Defendants from installing obstacles that obstruct the passage of the Plaintiffs, or from doing any other acts that interfere with the passage of the Plaintiffs.

B. The plaintiffs' assertion that the passage of this case by the defendants is merely the end of the house owned by the defendants, and the plaintiffs used the passage of this case and infringed the defendants' residential freedom, peace and safety while entering the house owned by the defendants without permission. The passage of this case is not a customary road, but a road of this case. The plaintiffs knowingly purchased each of the above land. The defendants did not currently control the passage of the passage of this case by the plaintiffs on the passage of this case. Thus, the passage of surrounding land should not be recognized.

2. Determination

(a) The right of passage over the surrounding land has no way to use it between the public interest and the public interest;

arrow