beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' conjunctive claims in this case dismissed the part of the claim for confirmation of the right of passage.
2. The plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Plaintiff A is the owner of Ja-J1260 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”) of Ja-Ja-Ja1260 square meters of land adjacent to each of the above lands owned by Plaintiff B, C, and D (specific location is as indicated in attached Form 1, and land owned by Plaintiff A is the same as indicated in attached Form 1) and adjacent to the above lands owned by Plaintiff B, C, and D. The land owned by the Plaintiff is the owner of land owned by the Plaintiff, Ja-gu, Seoul, and 10 square meters of forest land (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”).
B. In recent years, the Plaintiffs have used the roads indicated as “smallway” as indicated in Attachment 1 as part of the passage through which they contributed. During that process, the part of the Attached Form 2 (B) of the land owned by the Defendant was used as part of the passage.
C. However, in 2013, the Defendant installed a steel network on the paths from the G land owned by Plaintiff B to the land of the instant dispute, and installed a legal surface at a place adjacent to the public road and the said dispute land so that the Plaintiffs may not use the said dispute land as a passage through the road.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry and shape of Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including the number of each branch office), the result of the request for surveying appraisal by the person before this Court on October 7, 2014 for the branch office before the Korea Cadastral Survey Corporation, the purport of the entire pleadings
2. The plaintiffs' assertion that the land in the dispute in this case was offered as a passage for a long time for the use of the plaintiffs and the only land for which the plaintiffs can access as a contribution to the surrounding areas, and the plaintiffs have the right to passage over surrounding land as prescribed by the Civil Act concerning the land in this case. Thus, the defendant has the right to passage over surrounding land in this case.