logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2018.04.06 2017가단4010
주위토지통행권확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The E, which is linked to the east-gu, Cheongju-si, U.S. C (hereinafter “C”) D 828 square meters (hereinafter “D land”), and the 635 square meters (hereinafter “E land,” and the “D land” combined with “D land”) are owned by the Plaintiff. F road 14,890 square meters adjacent to the north of the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) is owned by the Defendant. The topographical and locational shape is the same as the 1-1 actual survey map and the 1-2 satellite photograph.

B. The Plaintiff’s land is farmland in which fruit trees are planted, and miscellaneous trees are growing.

C. The Defendant’s land is the access road and site of a G school, and the access road (hereinafter “the access road to the Defendant”) is divided into the roadway and India. The width is about 20 to 25 meters, and there is a sculpture indicated as “G school” at the end of the letter of the access road to the Defendant, and the road to that west is connected to the intersection in the direction of South and North Korea. There is a guard for controlling the access to the Defendant’s access to the road, and there is a G school on the east side of the road.

There is a drainage channel between the Defendant’s land and farmland including the Plaintiff’s land located south, and the Plaintiff, without obtaining permission for use from the Defendant, made a passage through the drainage channel between the Defendant’s land and E, and entered the Plaintiff’s land via the said channel.

The above passage route is about 52 square meters in the part "A" which connects each point in attached Table 1-1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 52 square meters in sequence.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant passage”). E.

Accordingly, around October 31, 2016, the defendant requested the plaintiff to restore the plaintiff's act to its original state since the plaintiff's act constitutes an illegal possession of state property. The plaintiff submitted a written confirmation to restore to its original state by October 31, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry or video of Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply).

arrow