beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 8-1 and 2, and there is no counter-proof.
The Plaintiff is the owner of 332 square meters (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s land of this case”) and 346 square meters (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s land of this case”) in Chuncheon-si, Cheongcheon-si, and the Defendant is the owner of 325 square meters (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s land of this case”) and 417 square meters (hereinafter “the Defendant’s land of this case”) prior to Chuncheon-si, the Defendant is the owner of the land of this case 325 square meters (hereinafter “the Defendant’s land of this case”).
B. The Plaintiff, among the Defendant’s land in the instant case, has entered each of the instant land via 37 square meters in the part on the ship, which connects each point of No. 28, 27, 26, 25, 20, 29, 29, and 28 of the attached drawing No. 1 among the Defendant’s land in the instant case (hereinafter “the instant existing road”), which connects each point of No. 7, 24, 9, 10, 23, 22, 23, 4, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the attached drawing No. 1 among the Defendant’s land in the instant case’s land in the instant case’s order, with the sign No. 72 square meters in the attached drawing No. 1, 37 square meters in the attached drawing No. 6, 16, 17, 18, 86 square meters in order.
C. On April 2001, the Plaintiff purchased KRW 33,00,000 among the Defendant’s land of this case between the Defendant and the Defendant, and the Defendant concluded a sales contract with the effect that the Plaintiff would yield access roads to the Defendant’s land of this case to the Plaintiff’s land of this case (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff’s primary argument 1 is that the Defendant agreed to allow the Plaintiff to use the existing passage according to the instant sales contract. However, around June 2015, the Defendant set up part of the existing passage of the instant case as the steel fence, and made the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff via the existing passage.