logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2020.08.19 2018가단136907
주위토지통행권 부존재 확인의 청구
Text

1. The Defendants indicated in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, among the area of 2,853 square meters before Gyeonggi-gun D, Gyeonggi-do, with respect to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B is the owner of the land of Pyeongtaek-gun E (hereinafter “E”) and F, G, H land (hereinafter “E”), E, F, G, and H land (hereinafter “E, F, G, and H land”).

B. On September 21, 2006, Defendant B’s mother obtained permission to engage in development activities to install general housing and access roads to the E land (hereinafter “instant development permission”); around October 2007, Defendant A obtained permission to change development activities (hereinafter “instant development activities permission”); and on October 21, 2008, Defendant B newly constructed two-story detached housing and warehouse buildings (hereinafter “instant building”).

C. Defendant B donated the instant building from Defendant A on February 22, 2018.

The roads from the contribution to each of the instant land and buildings include ① a passage along which I, J, D, or K land is passing (hereinafter referred to as “first passage”) and ② a passage along which L, M, or K land is passing (hereinafter referred to as “second passage”).

E. The Plaintiff owns land I, J, and D.

F. Defendant A is residing in the instant building, and Defendant C is the spouse of Defendant B.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 10 through 14, 16, 17 (if any, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of this court’s request for the measurement and appraisal of the letter of credit branch of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s assertion interferes with the Plaintiff’s ownership by passing the first passage even though it is possible to enter the second passage, even though it does not pass through the first passage, and therefore, they seek confirmation that the Defendants did not have the right of passage as to the first passage.

B. The passage of construction vehicles is narrow to the extent that the passage of construction vehicles is impossible, and L/W land and its ground building constituting the second passage is narrow.

arrow