beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: the "defluence of debt in the first instance court's judgment" of No. 13 is changed to "Acceptance's testimony of witness M" of No. 6 of the first instance court's judgment into "Acceptance's testimony and fact-finding inquiry results of Seongdong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City court's fact-finding" of No. 5, No. 19,20 is added to "the facts changed" of No. 19 and No. 20 of the fifth, "the facts described in the division conditions after completion of construction of the real estate and U.S.," and "the five (5) related legal principles" of the fifth, as stated in the reasoning of the first instance court's judgment, other than adding the following parts to No. 4 of the fifth and fourth (4). Thus, this part is excluded from the part related to the claim for delivery as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(A) In addition, it is reasonable to deem that the original owner of the land has acquired the ownership of the land by offering part of the land as a site for a road without compensation and by waiver of the exclusive right to use and benefit therefrom, and then the specific successor of the ownership of the land has acquired the ownership of the land, with the knowledge of such circumstances at least the burden of restricting such use and benefit therefrom (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da36852, Nov. 29, 196). However, in cases where an objective circumstance, which was the basis for excluding exclusive use and benefit from the land due to a significant change in the land use status, has been significantly changed, the landowner may again claim the right based on the complete ownership, including the right to use and benefit from the time when such change occurs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da54133, Aug. 22, 2013).
The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.