logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.04.26 2016가단113290
통행방해금지 등
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Attached Form 18 is marked on the surface of 3,355 square meters prior to Gyeonggi-gun C, D river 2,701 square meters and on the surface of 2,701 square meters.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. In fact, the Plaintiff is the owner of the Gyeonggi-gu G Forest G, Gyeonggi-gun, and 3,300 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “Jaeong-gun, Gyeonggi-do” in the land indication) and was granted permission for conversion of a mountainous district for the purpose of constructing three single houses on the above land.

Plaintiff

Each location of the said G and its neighboring area of 3,355 square meters, D river 2,701 square meters, E 339 square meters, F river 8,264 square meters is as indicated in the separate third drawings, and the owner of each of the above land is as listed below.

The Defendant, installed by the Defendant on the line that connects each point of Annex 18, and Annex 19 on the line that connects each point of Annex 1 of Annex 1 (hereinafter “the steel structure located on the line”), Annex 1 to Annex 20, and Annex 2 of Annex 2 to Annex 2 of Annex 2 of Annex 2 on the land (hereinafter “the steel structure located on the above line”) and Annex 20, and 21 of Annex 2 of Annex 2 of Annex 2 to Annex 3,35,00 square meters, Plaintiff 3 D river 2,30,000 square meters, Plaintiff 3 D river 2,701 square meters in Korea, and 5,264 square meters in Korea, and D land 339,000 square meters in Korea, and each point of Annex 18, 19, respectively, (hereinafter “the steel structure located on the above line”), is difficult to accept the Defendant’s allegation that the steel structure installed by the Defendant was located on the above line.

Each steel structure is in letter, and the above argument is asserted to the effect that the result of the measurement of the location of the steel structure 3 is erroneous, while the above argument is not accepted as there is no evidence to acknowledge the error of the measurement, on the ground that the part 51m2 is above the 51m3m3m2 in the annexed drawing No. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 11 of the G.

No. 3.

arrow