(영문) 대전지방법원홍성지원 2014.11.26 2014가단291

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대전지방법원홍성지원 2014.11.26 2014가단291

통행권확인청구

Text

1. Of the land size of 356 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gun, the Plaintiff each point of the attached Form No. 27,28,56,55,57, and 27, among the land size of 356 square meters in the Republic of Korea.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer as the budget registry office of the Daejeon District Court on July 19, 2012 with respect to the area of 8,680 square meters in Chungcheongnam-nam Budget-gun H, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to each of 1/2 shares out of 300 square meters in I forest land and 348 square meters in J forest and 348 square meters in the same registry office on July 19, 2012.

(hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff’s land”). B.

Defendant B is the owner of a size of 356 square meters (hereinafter “F land”) in the vicinity of the Plaintiff’s land, and Defendant C occupies the said land as a partner of the Dong, and Defendant D and E share 1/2 of the G forest land in the vicinity of the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “G land”).

C. Meanwhile, at the same time, the Plaintiff’s land is surrounded by another’s land. The only passage is the passage from the Plaintiff’s land on the part of the Plaintiff to the public road by passing through the land, L, F, G land, etc., and the part existing in the F is about 43 square meters inboard (v) connected with each point of the attached Form No. 27,28, 56, 55, 57, and 27, and the part existing in G land is about 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 334, 35, 36, 37, 37, and 15 (e) of the same map.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 8, 12, and 13 respectively, the result of the verification by this court, the result of the survey and appraisal by appraiser M, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff’s land is not allowed to enter the public road without passing through the road in this case because it has no way to use the land between the public road and the public road. On the other hand, the scope of the Plaintiff’s right to passage over surrounding land is at least the vehicle in light of the status of

유사 판례

-대전지방법원논산지원 2015.05.07 2014가단20441

-대전지방법원 2016.01.15 2015나103829

-대전지방법원홍성지원 2017.05.23 2016가단5849

-대전지방법원홍성지원 2014.10.21 2014가단2815

-창원지방법원거창지원 2020.06.23 2018가단11102