logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.07.22 2015나2058943
수로변경 및 원상복구 등
Text

1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim that is changed in exchange at the trial is dismissed.

2. The total cost of the lawsuit.

Reasons

Basic Facts

On October 29, 198, the Defendant is the owner of the land listed in paragraph (3) of [Attachment 1] List of Real Estate (hereinafter “instant State-owned land”). The Defendant is the owner of the instant State-owned land, who completed registration of ownership preservation, and the instant State-owned land is adjacent to the land listed in paragraph (2) of the same Table (hereinafter “instant land 2”).

On August 29, 2002, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 1/2 shares out of the instant land No. 2, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land listed in Paragraph 1 of the same List on December 6, 2004 (hereinafter “instant land No. 1”).

The appointed party completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 10, 2006 with respect to 1/2 shares out of the land No. 2 of this case.

원래 이 사건 국유지 지상에 계천(溪川, 이하 ‘이 사건 유수’라 한다)이 흐르고 있었는데, 원고와 선정자(이하 ‘원고 등’이라 한다)가 위 소유권을 취득하기 훨씬 이전부터 자연적으로 유로가 변경되어, 현재 이 사건 유수는 원고 등 소유의 이 사건 제1, 2토지[대체로 별지 2 도면 표시 (가), (나) 부분, 이하 ‘이 사건 구거부지’라 한다]를 관통하여 흐르고 있다.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the result of the on-site inspection by this court, as a result of the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings and the background of the dispute, the flow of the present state-owned land (land category of the plaintiff et al.) from the valleys around a long time to the land owned by the plaintiff et al., resulting in the plaintiff et al. being unable to properly occupy and use their own land.

This was the basis of the claim of this case.

Plaintiff

The main point of the argument is that the flow of the flowing water of this case changed as now, the flow of the flowing water of this case is 30 centimeters or more with soil near the flow of the flowing water of this case illegally by Nonparty F.

arrow