logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.01.23 2017나55975
통행권확인등
Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following judgments, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined

A. Inasmuch as the objective circumstance, which served as the basis for excluding the exclusive right to use and benefit from the instant road, was significantly changed due to a significant change in the state of the use of the instant road by the Defendants, the exclusive right to use and benefit from the instant road cannot be deemed excluded

B. We examine whether the objective circumstance, which served as the basis for excluding the exclusive right to use and benefit from the road of this case, has been significantly changed.

The following circumstances revealed in full view of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① the motive for the road to be offered for the passage of the general public appears to prevent the decline in the value of divided land, ② the fact that the building was newly constructed or extended after the division of the land including the road of this case, may still be recognized as being offered for the passage of the general public, but the road of this case may still be offered for the passage of the general public, ③ the Defendants asserted that they offered the Plaintiff to use the said land free of charge, but it is difficult to view that the exclusive use right of the said H land already abandoned was restored solely on the possibility of using other passages. The Defendants’ assertion to provide the said H land free of charge is premised on the premise that the F did not waive the exclusive use right of the said land. The evidence submitted only when comprehensively comparing the location, process of division, shape, etc. of the road of this case and the said H land, and the exclusive use right of the said land is insufficient.

arrow