beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 23, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the land listed in [Attachment 1 List 1(1) (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s land”) and the building on its ground.
B. On November 7, 2007, N and Defendant E completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of 1/2 shares of each of the lands listed in [Attachment 1] List 2 and 3 (hereinafter “instant Defendants’ land”). Defendants B, C, and D purchased all of the N shares of the instant Defendants’ land and completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of 1/6 shares on July 8, 2013.
Defendant D and E are children of Defendant B.
C. From around June 2008, part of the Defendants’ land was used as a runway for the owners and tenants of the Plaintiff’s land in this case and the owners and tenants of Jongno-gu Seoul OO land to enter G roads (attached Form 3), and around June 2008, when the passage road was newly opened on the attached Form 3 Map 1-B-III display, neighboring residents began to use it as the current state of entering G roads and P roads.
In addition, up to June 2008, there was a crime prevention guard against the Defendants’ land above the instant Defendants, from August 2010 to February 2012, the Plaintiff left the parts of the Defendants’ land in this case, and accordingly, it was difficult for the Plaintiff to pass the vehicles into the No.D. Section C-4 even before the fence was installed.
E. From June 13, 2014 to June 15, 2014, the Defendants installed cement block fences with a height of 1.5 meters, length of 13.82 meters, and width of 3.41 meters from the part of the Defendants’ land in the instant case, which successively connected each point of the Defendants’ land.
(1) On the part of the Plaintiff’s land and the passage between the instant walls, the width between the Plaintiff’s land and the instant walls was approximately KRW 1.8m or 2m, and the said passage route was the same. (2) On the part of the Plaintiff’s land and the instant walls, the width was about KRW 1.8m or 2m.