beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
The plaintiffs alleged by the plaintiffs are the owners of the building above the K K, the plaintiff B, and the plaintiff D are the owners of the land located in J, and the defendants are the owners of the land located in J. The defendants are the owners of the land located in I, H. The defendants are not allowed to enter the part (a) in the ship connecting each point of (b) part (a) size of 6m2, 4 through 10, and 4 of the attached drawing in order to connect each point of (b) size of 12m2, 11 through 16, 22 through 25, and 11 of the attached drawing in order to connect each point of (c) size of 12m2, 45m2, 18 through 21, and 18m2 of the attached drawing among the land in I.
Therefore, the plaintiffs sought confirmation of the right to passage over surrounding land in the dispute of this case, and at the same time seek to the defendants the removal of stone structure above 8m2 of the above part (f) and the above 26m2 of the annexed drawings, and the prohibition of interference with passage over the surrounding land in the future.
Furthermore, the Defendants are obligated to remove the stone-building structure on the ground of one square meter in the ship (ma) that connects each point of the items of 17, 18, 21, and 17 in the attached Form No. 17, 18, 21, and 17 among the land of J to the Plaintiff B and C, and deliver the land
Judgment
If a piece of land has no access to a public road, which is necessary for the use of the land, without passing over the surrounding land, and the owner of the land cannot reach the public road, or the cost to reach the pubic road is excessive, he may pass over the surrounding land to the public road, and if necessary he may construct a path.
(Article 219(1) main text of the Civil Act). Pursuant to the overall purport of the statement and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers), No. 2, and No. 2, among the land owned by the Defendant, the de facto road has been formed on the land in dispute of this case, which is part of the land owned by the Defendant, and the neighboring residents have no specific dispute for a long time.