beta
Text
1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.
2.Pursuant to the counterclaim brought at the trial.
Reasons
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. The reasons why this Court shall explain this part of the judgment of the court of first instance which cited this part of the claim are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the "judgment on the cause of claim" of No. 3 and No. 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance is referred to as "judgment on the cause of claim of the principal lawsuit". Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of
2. Judgment on the part of the counterclaim claim
A. The defendant's conjunctive assertion that if the plaintiffs' right to passage over surrounding land is acknowledged on the road of this case, the plaintiffs are obligated to pay 234,130 won, which is equivalent to the rent for the road of this case, to the defendant as land rent.
B. According to Article 219(2) of the Civil Act, where the right to passage over surrounding land is recognized, the person who has the right to passage over surrounding land shall compensate for the damages of the person who has the right to passage over surrounding land. In ordinary, such amount is equivalent to the amount of profit earned by occupying or using the land, and in full view of the purport of the argument as a result of appraisal of rent by an appraiser N of the party, the rent from September 26, 2014 to July 28, 2015 can be acknowledged as 234,130 won per month (=48,800 won per month) and the rent thereafter shall be confirmed as the same amount, barring any special circumstance.
However, in full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 2 and 3, evidence Nos. 4-1 to 3, and evidence No. 9-1 to 9-9, it can be acknowledged that the passage of this case was used as a passage for the entry, etc. of the defendant and his family members from among the passage roads of this case to the building gate owned by the defendant. Thus, even if the right of passage over surrounding land is acknowledged to the plaintiffs as to the passage roads of this case, the passage of this case does not exclusively occupy and use the passage roads of this case, but it is for the defendant continuously as before.