logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.04.12 2016가단13979
통행방해금지
Text

1. The Defendant indicated on the attached sheet No. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, among the land size of 1474 square meters prior to Incheon Strengthening-gun C.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 2013, the Plaintiff purchased a forest land of 11114 square meters in Incheon-gun, Incheon-gun, and acquired ownership, and then divided the said land into 14 lots, including D forest land and 1228 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”) around December 2015.

On March 2014, the Plaintiff obtained permission to engage in development activities for the land owned by the Plaintiff and suspended the creation of housing site since February 2015.

B. Around July 2003, the Defendant purchased ownership of 1474m2 (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”) prior to Incheon-gun, Incheon-gun, and acquired ownership.

C. Between the land owned by the Defendant and the land E (owner F) of Incheon Strengthening Group, the Plaintiff opened a concrete packaging road with a width of 2.5m to 3m from the land owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “existing road”) prior to commencing the said housing site creation work. D.

Attached Form

The portion (B) of 99 square meters in the ship (hereinafter “instant land”) which connects each point of 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 9 square meters in sequence among the land owned by the defendant is not a concrete package, in contact with the edge of the existing road.

[Reasons for Recognition] 1 to 4, 6, 1, 2, and 4 (including paper numbers), the survey and appraisal results of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In light of the following circumstances as alleged by the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff has the right to pass over the surrounding land under Article 219 of the Civil Act with respect to the land of this case. Thus, the defendant shall not interfere with the plaintiff's passage over the land of this case.

The key issue of the land of this case, along with the existing road, has been used as the current status of 4.5m wide from before the plaintiff far more than the construction of the housing site.

The plaintiff purchased land owned by the plaintiff after reporting that construction vehicles, such as dump trucks, can pass.

arrow