(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.07.24 2019나59645

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) 광주지방법원 2020.07.24 2019나59645

주위토지통행권확인 등 청구의 소

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 17, 2015, the Plaintiff is the owner of E large-scale 324 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”). The Defendant is the owner of D large-scale 598 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).

B. The Plaintiff’s land cannot enter the public road unless it passes through the land owned by another person, including the Defendant, including the Defendant, and the Defendant’s land is attached to his public road and is attached to the Plaintiff’s land.

The specific location shall be as shown in the attached cadastral map.

C. The former owner of the Plaintiff’s land passed the Plaintiff’s land through part of the Defendant’s land before the Defendant acquired the Defendant’s land, and immediately after the Defendant acquired the Defendant’s land, the existing passage was closed.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry and video of Gap evidence 1 through 5 and Eul evidence 1, the result of on-site inspection by the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's land was used as dry field, and the plaintiff's land was expected to be used as dry field. There is no passage between the plaintiff's land and the public road, and the owner of the plaintiff's land also passed through using the 77 square meters of the "cocks" portion of the attached Form No. 2, 3, 4, 20, 21, 20, 9, 10, 11, 22, 23, and 22 before acquiring the defendant's land. Since passing through the passage of this case is a method of less than the damage to the surrounding land, the plaintiff's confirmation of the right to passage over surrounding land and the removal of the road passage obstruction installed by the defendant, under the premise that the right to passage over surrounding land is recognized as the right to passage over the passage of this case to the extent possible.

3. Determination

A. The right of passage over surrounding land is at the risk of damage to the owner of the land where there is no necessary passage between the public service and the use of the land.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 2018.01.16 2017가단52197

-대전지방법원공주지원 2019.02.28 2018가단21431

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2018.01.31 2016가단22343

-제주지방법원 2016.12.30 2016가단54123

-광주지방법원 2018.01.10 2016나9281