(영문) 춘천지방법원원주지원 2015.01.15 2014가단32259

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) 춘천지방법원원주지원 2015.01.15 2014가단32259

주위토지통행권확인

Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs share 1,243 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and 488 square meters and 2,922 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiffs’ land”) adjoining to the north-west and the Gangwon-do Crossing-gun E (hereinafter “E”) and reside in a single-story house on the F.1st ground.

B. The Defendant owned the instant land.

C. The Plaintiffs had been passing F to land in the public road (H) using a portion of “bb” 46 square meters inside a ship which connects each point of No. 9, 13, 14, 6, and 9 of the annexed drawing No. 1 on the land of this case (hereinafter “the first passage road of this case”). At present, the said passage road part is located in a vinyl house installed by the Defendant, and it is impossible to pass through the said road.

The end of the contribution (H) leading to I land in the direction of the north east along the south-west border line of the instant land (hereinafter “third-way road of this case”) is divided into the above I land and the passage road leading to the southwest top of the G land (hereinafter “third-way road of this case”) by passing through J-1,213 square meters owned by the Defendant and leading to the southwest top of the G land, so it is possible to enter the road of this case.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including the number, if any), the result of the on-site verification by this court, the result of the appraiser K's survey and appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The alleged plaintiffs should pass through 75 square meters in the ship which combines the points of No. 1 of this case or No. 2 of Map No. 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 7, 8, and 9 of Map No. 2 of the annexed Map No. 9, 13, 14, 15, 17, 8, and 9 among the land of this case in order to enter a public road from the plaintiffs' land. The third passage of this case is not only inconvenience for the plaintiffs' passage, but also it is not suitable for the plaintiffs to use the second passage of this case as the passage due to the increase of objective damage, such as the area to be used as the passage exceeds the area to be used as the passage of this case. The plaintiffs primarily

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2018.02.26 2017가단2990

-대구지방법원 2018.01.25 2017나302798

-청주지방법원충주지원 2013.12.11 2013가단891

-제주지방법원 2020.09.15 2019나14332

-청주지방법원충주지원 2015.01.14 2014가단2870