Scope of exercise of traffic rights over the surrounding land

It is nothing more than 1.13 meters in the south of the site owned by the plaintiff and 10.35 meters in length, if it is possible to contribute to this passage, unlike the case where it is entirely impossible to pass through a road, it shall be done by selecting a place and method with the least damage to the owner of the road. Meanwhile, Article 62 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act provides that the width of the road shall be at least 3 meters at the time of building permission, and Article 219 of the Civil Act does not provide that a person holding a traffic right over surrounding land may use a road more than 3 meters for the owner of the road.

Article 219 of the Civil Act, Article 62 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act

Supreme Court Decision 76Da808 Decided June 7, 197 (Gong153No687 Decided 199 (14) of the Civil Act), No. 219 (No. 564, No. 10148), No. 82, Jun. 22, 1982 (No. 219(18), No. 429, No. 219(18) of the Civil Act, No. 30, No. 153No 690)

Jinsia

Written Hands

Daegu District Court of First Instance (85No735 decided May 1, 200)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

The defendant removes the number of points in the line connecting the plaintiff 46-5 39.7 square meters of the 0.2 meters breadth above the line connecting the annexed drawing 2,6 of the 39.7 square meters breadth above the line of 0.2 meters 0.2 meters above the line, and the iron 1,2,6,7, and 1 of the attached drawing indication in sequence, (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (i), (ii), (iii), and (b) of the attached drawing. The defendant shall not obstruct the plaintiff 39.7 square meters display (a) and (b) of the attached drawing as a passage.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution (the plaintiff extended the claim in the trial).

The same shall apply to the order.

At the time of the port indicated in the attached drawing, the ownership transfer registration has been made in the name of the defendant as to the 45-5 large 46-6 large 426 square meters and the 45-5 large 12 square meters and the 46-5 large 12 square meters and the 46-4 large 35 large 3 square meters and the 46-5 large 35 large 12 square meters and the 45-5 large 12 large 12 square meters in the name of the plaintiff, and the (A) portion of the ship connecting each point of the 2,3,4,5,6, and 2 of the same map among the 45-5 large 12 large 45-5 large 12 square meters and the 45-

In light of the above 46-4 and the above 5-meter ground for the plaintiff's claim, the plaintiff's right to use the above 46-1 road and the above 46-5-meter wide-scale passage of the building can not be used by the defendant for more than 1, 2, 4, 7, and 1 in order. Thus, the plaintiff's right to use the 5-meter wide-scale passage to the above 46-6-meter wide-area, and the above 46-5-meter wide-area (the above 46-meter wide-area passage of the building should not be used by the defendant for more than 5-meter wide-area and the 5-meter wide-area wide-area wide-area wide-area wide-area wide-area wide-area wide-area wide-area wide-area wide-area wide-area wide-area wide-area wide-area wide-area wide-area wide-area size-area area (the above 46-meter width-area wide-area adjacent to the building).

In addition, considering the whole purport of the arguments as to the evidence Nos. 6-1 through 5 of the evidence Nos. 6-5 without dispute in the establishment, the testimony of the court below scam, Kim Jong-ju, the party members' testimony, and the result of the party members' verification, when the defendant constructed the wall of this case at the beginning of 1982, he shall be granted more than 50 centimeters from the above 46-6 site owned by the defendant to the 46-5 site, and when the plaintiff consented to scambling the wall of this case, he shall transfer the ownership of the part No. 46-3 site and the house wall of this case to the defendant, and at that time, the dispute about the wall Nos. 46-3 site and the house wall of this case was set up on the line No. 4, 5 to the 108-3 site of this case, and the non-party 4's claim for the removal of the above site of this case to the non-party 46-party 6'scam.

Even if the Defendant installed the instant fence, the Plaintiff consented as above with the knowledge that the road width would be 2 meters and 30 cents, and that at that time, the passage used by the Plaintiff at that time consented to the said 46-3 site at a point of 1 meters and 30cm, and the said agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was erroneous in the important part of the contents of the juristic act, and thus, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case, which is premised on the right to passage over surrounding land as to the annexed land (B) portion, shall be dismissed without merit. Since the original judgment is unfair with its conclusion, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs, since the original judgment is revoked differently.

[Attachment Omission]

Judges Sohn-hee (Presiding Judge)