logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원영월지원 2019.05.15 2018가단11416
주위통행권확인 등 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is the owner of the 350 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “D”) prior to Gangseo-gun, Seowon-gun, Seowon-gun, the 2,919 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “C land”), the 350 square meters prior to D, and the 5,193 square meters prior to E (hereinafter referred to as “E land”), and F and G are the co-owners of H 64,917 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “H land”).

B. Around January 29, 2018, the Plaintiff, a corporation operating solar power generation projects, obtained a license for solar power generation projects in H land from the head of Pyeongtaek-si, and subsequently entered into a land use agreement with F and G on H land around July 2018. The Plaintiff agreed to use H land for purposes, including permission for solar power generation, electricity business, and permission for development.

C. Between H land and public road, the Defendant-owned land, D land, and E have land, and among the land C, part (1) is 95 square meters inboard connected each point of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10, and 11 of the attached Form No. 5, 11, 12, 13, 6, and 5 of the attached Form No. 4 among the land D; part (2) is 16 square meters in line with each point of the attached Form No. 5, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 14 of the attached Form No. 69 square meters in sequence and each part of the land is connected to each other’s land (3) that is included in the attached Form No. 24, 25, 27, 28, 294.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and 8 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. The defendant asserts that the owner of H land has no limit to pass on for the cultivation of wild vegetables or better morals, and eventually, the passage required for the use of the above H land has already been secured. Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit has no benefit of confirmation.

The defendant is the plaintiff's land C, D.

arrow