logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
대구고등법원 2015.08.26 2014나23400
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed after cancelling the part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance.

2. The plaintiff's appeal is filed.

Reasons

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or are recognized by the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, 12, 13, 14, 17 through 22, 24, 25, 27, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 18 (including branch numbers where no special indication is made; hereinafter the same shall apply), video, and the entire purport of pleading, and there is no counter-proof.

On August 22, 1946, G land was divided into D large 450 square meters and C large 473 square meters (hereinafter all land shall be indicated only by the Dong and the lot number). The shape of each land after the division shall be as shown in attached Form 1.

B. On October 27, 2006, the Defendant received testamentary gift from I on October 27, 2006, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Defendant on October 7, 2009. Around 2013, the Defendant removed the existing house on the ground and newly built a new detached house, and completed the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the Defendant on January 11, 2013.

C. On October 4, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased D and its ground detached housing from F, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 27, 2012.

On January 11, 2013, the Defendant completed registration of preservation of ownership in the Defendant’s name. Of the business C’s land, the Defendant installed steel gate columns and gates at the connected points listed in Appendix 12 and 13, and installed steel gate columns and gates in turn, connected each point listed in Map 7, 8, 12, 10, 11, 15, 13, 6, and 7, and 200 square meters in thickness of 42 square meters in the above concrete package.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion D land was divided into C land on August 2, 1946, and the owner of the said land continued to use part of C land as a passage leading to a contribution. As such, the Plaintiff, as the owner of D land, has the right of passage pursuant to Articles 219 through 220 (Division, Partial Assignment, and Right of Passing over Surrounding Land) of the Civil Act as to the part of the passage among C land, and acquired the right of passage by prescription, even if it is not so, even if it is not, the right of passage was acquired by prescription.

However, land C.