logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1983. 5. 10. 선고 80다2937 판결
[공작물철거등][공1983.7.1.(707),958]
Main Issues

Land whose land category is a road and a road under the Road Act;

Summary of Judgment

Since the land category on the land cadastre is a road, it can not be considered as a road subject to the Road Act.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 2 of the Road Act

Plaintiff-Appellant

Attorney Gangnam-won et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant-Appellee

Defendant’s Attorney Lee Han-soo

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na3856 delivered on October 31, 1980

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Reasons

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

The fact-finding and determination that the court below did not find that the land of the above two parcels is being provided for public passage while finding that the above land is a road and cannot be seen as being provided for public passage, based on the right to passage of the road and the removal of the ground structures and the plaintiff's right to passage of the land of the second parcel at the original city of the original city of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which sought the defendant from the removal of the ground structures and the prohibition of interference with passage of the plaintiff. According to related evidence, the land of the above two parcels is only the land of the land on the land of the land of the second lot as a road on the land of the land of the land of the land of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the land of the land of the second lot cannot be deemed as the Seoul Special Metropolitan City subject to the Road Act.According to the related evidence, since the ownership transfer registration was completed in the bank on September 14, 1934, there is no change in ownership since only the land category on the land of the land of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City can be recognized, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or evidence.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)

arrow