logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.10.17 2018나79346
주위토지통행권확인 등
Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance, including the claim that the plaintiff changed in this court, is modified as follows.

The plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition as follows, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The portion of the judgment of the court of first instance written or added shall be as follows: (a) No. 12, No. 7, No. 2, No. 9, No. 6, and No. 11, “creditors” shall be as “Plaintiffs”, and (b) “debtors” of No. 5, No. 16 shall be as “Defendants”.

The fifth part of the fifth part of the judgment of the court of first instance added "Therefore, the defendant is obliged not to obstruct the plaintiff's passage, such as the statement in paragraph (1) of the claim, to the minimum extent necessary for the plaintiff's operation of the factory of this case."

Part 11 of the judgment of the first instance is added to the following judgments.

(11) The road of this case is a road for which permission for development and completion of construction for building a road within 6 meters in width and 2 meters in width have been granted, and which is a road for building a road, a change of the status between the above roadway and the sidewalk shall obtain permission for the change of development activities, and if the road is used continuously without permission for the change, various dispositions may be taken by violating the National Land Planning and Utilization Act

(12) On December 20, 2013, the fact that the Plaintiff obtained approval for free use of the instant road from the I Co., Ltd. is recognized.

However, the Defendant’s bid for the road of this case is for the operation of oil and gas filling stations on the neighboring land. Even if the Defendant knew of the fact that the road was being used as the passage road for the Plaintiff’s ready-mixed factory through the contents of public notice on the auction date or the inspection of the specifications of auction goods or the execution records kept in the court during the auction procedure, it is consistent with the permission for development activities and the completion inspection for the construction of the road.

arrow