logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.07.13 2016나59901
통행권확인등
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) each of the “Voluntary P of Jin-si in Changwon-si” of the first instance judgment, and each of the “Jin-si P of Jin-si in Changwon-si” of the first instance judgment; and (b) the Plaintiffs’ additional arguments made in the trial are as indicated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for adding the following judgment as to the assertion added in the trial, thereby citing it as is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. 1) The plaintiffs' assertion on the right to passage over surrounding land 1) since they obtained permission to operate main material factory from the land of the Jin-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Changwon-si, which is the land owned by the plaintiffs, by changing the form and quality of the land before the closing of argument in the first instance trial of this case. Thus, the scope of the right to passage over surrounding land as a minimum passage for large truck traffic, and the right to passage over surrounding land should be recognized pursuant to Article 219 of the Civil Act. 2) The scope of the right to passage over surrounding land should not be necessary for the person holding the right to passage over the land of this case, but it should be recognized within the scope of the place where the damage to the owner of the surrounding land is small, and the scope should be determined after considering the topography, location and use relation of the surrounding land in light of social norms, and it should be determined within the scope of the current right to use the surrounding land, and furthermore, it should not be determined in preparation for future use (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da396.

The contents are to guarantee in advance the passage of a width necessary for entry of a heavy equipment or a large vehicle for construction works, and to have the owner of the surrounding land sign it.

arrow