logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2017.02.07 2016가단4838
주위토지통행권확인등
Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

A. The right of passage shall be granted to the area of 331 square meters per Seopo-si D.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the area of 1942 square meters prior to E in Seopo-si, Seopo-si, E (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s land”). The Plaintiff is a wals wals wals wals wals wals wals wals wals wals wals wals wals wals wals wal

B. The Plaintiff’s land is surrounded by conduits, etc. with other land, and the Plaintiff has used the Defendants’ land as a road from around 1973 around the time of purchase of the Plaintiff’s land.

C. Defendant B also owns the F orchard 2030 square meters (hereinafter “the instant orchard”). While Defendant B used the G land owned by the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “G land”) as a passage to serve in the instant orchard, which is a master land, the G land was located in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “G land”), Defendant B requested the Plaintiff to change the passage right to the remaining part of the Plaintiff’s land to use the Plaintiff’s land as a passage, following the occurrence of a dispute over the passage between the National Forestry Institute H (hereinafter “H”) under the Korea Forest Service, which manages the said G land.

The Plaintiff did not comply with the above request of the Defendants, and the Defendants prevented the Plaintiff from using the Defendants’ land as a passage, such as preventing the entry of both the Defendants’ land into the instant case by using rocks, etc.

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including each number), Eul evidence or video 4, the result of on-site verification by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff seeking confirmation of the right of passage to the Defendants’ land, the removal of obstacles, and the prohibition of obstruction of passage against the Defendants’ land.

In other words, the Defendants’ land of this case is classified as land category since before 1977, and is a land category for a long time.

arrow