beta
Text
1. The defendant points out 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the lands listed in the attached list 2, listed in the attached list 1, respectively.
Reasons
1.The following facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be admitted by adding together the whole purport of the pleadings to each entry or video set forth in Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 (including the number of branches), and evidence Nos. 1 to 1.
Attached Form
The land indicated in paragraph (1) of the list (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) is owned by the Plaintiff, and the land indicated in paragraph (2) of the same list (including the part on the 7m2 and the 13m2m2 in Busan Jin-gu, Busan, including the part on the 7m2 as indicated in paragraph (1) of the disposition of March 19, 2012, and the (b) part on the 13m2 as indicated in paragraph (1) of the same list
B. The Plaintiff’s land cannot enter the Plaintiff’s land as a master land without passing through the Defendant’s land.
C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff owned a housing building on the Plaintiff’s land, and used the part 7 square meters and 13 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) on the part of the Defendant’s land as a passage to and from the Plaintiff’s land for contribution.
2. Determination
A. 1) First of all, determination on the claim for confirmation of the right to passage over surrounding land is that the Plaintiff cannot access the Plaintiff’s land as a contribution without passing over the Defendant’s land. Thus, the Plaintiff’s right to passage over surrounding land is recognized pursuant to Article 219(1) of the Civil Act as to the Defendant’s land. Furthermore, the instant land has been used as a passage over surrounding land before the Defendant acquired the Defendant’s ownership, and the Defendant seems to have been well aware of such circumstances, taking into account all the circumstances such as the topography, locational shape and use relationship of the instant land including the Plaintiff’s land and the Defendant’s land, the area of the instant land, and surrounding geographical conditions, and the overall purport of arguments as seen above, it is reasonable to deem that the scope extends to the entire land of this case.
3. If so, the defendant's above land of this case is about the plaintiff's above.