Requirements for prescriptive acquisition of servitude

Since it is necessary to say that the prescriptive acquisition of servitudes is continued and expressed in addition to the requirements for general prescriptive acquisition, it is possible only to cases where a person holding a right can pass the servient tenement without a rest room with special facilities, such as the construction of a passage by the holder of a right.

Article 294 of the Civil Act

65Da2305, 2306 decided Sep. 6, 196 (Supreme Court Decision 2207DaKadr207, Supreme Court Decision 14Third citizen3, summary of the decision, Article 294(1)354 of the Civil Act)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul Central District Court (63 Ga6061) in the first instance trial

This appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The attorney of the plaintiff et al. shall not interfere with the passage of the plaintiff at the 10 square meters connecting 5 Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (detailed address 1 omitted) to 50 square meters, and shall remove obstacles installed at the point where the points of (c) (Na) (Na) are connected among the above drawings.

The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant, etc.

The plaintiff's attorney has cancelled the original judgment and requested the same judgment as that of the above purport of the claim, and the defendant et al.'s attorney has the same judgment as the disposition.

No. 1 (the same as the copy of the register -- A No. 3) and No. 3 (the copy of the register) without dispute for establishment

According to each description of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Plaintiff owned 91 minutes of co-ownership 8 of co-ownership 91 in relation to 1 large 91 in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Jongno-gu 5 in relation to 1 large 91, respectively, and the Defendant, etc. owned 83/91 of the shares in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Jongno-gu 5 in relation to 1 large 91.

First, the plaintiff asserts that the dong Part of the above site, which is the public land of the plaintiff, is surrounded by the house and that the only passage leading to the above land, which is the public land of the defendant et al., passes through the 5-ro, the only way to pass through the above land, which is the public land of the defendant et al., is about 10 square meters, connecting the above public land of the defendant et al., and therefore the defendant et al. has the right to pass through the 10-day, which connects the above public land of the defendant et al., (c) (k) (k) (k) (k) with the point of "B (C)" as of June 1963, that the defendant et al. installed obstacles to the above public land of the defendant et al. and interfere with the plaintiff's passage, so it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff's passage through the above public land of the defendant et al., which is the public land of the defendant et al., and it is hard to recognize that the plaintiff's testimony.

Therefore, as long as part of the Plaintiff’s public land is directly contributed to a direct contribution, the Plaintiff’s right to access the land owned by another person shall not be granted unless there is a special reason to the contrary.

Next, even if the above assertion is groundless, the plaintiff's right to use the land and the above ground buildings owned by the defendant et al. from 1947 to 1947, which were originally purchased by each state of the defendant et al. before the above purchase, can be acquired by prescription only if it is in a situation where the right holder can use special equipment such as the construction of a passage for the non-party 1's own land and the non-party 1's testimony (excluding the part which is not believed later) without dispute, and that the plaintiff's right to use the land owned by the plaintiff et al. for the non-party 1's own land and the non-party 4's own land for non-party 1's own land and the non-party 1's own land for non-party 5's own land after the expiration of the period from 1947 to 1's own land and the non-party 1's own land for non-party 1's own land for non-party 3's own land for non-party 1's own use.

Finally, the plaintiff asserts that the above site owned by the defendant et al. is originally reverted to the non-party 2 at the time of the state's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's rejection of the above plaintiff's assertion, but the part of Gap No. 5's statement (the notice pointing out the passage of reverted property) is consistent with this, which is no dispute over the establishment of the plaintiff's non-party 8's statement of No. 8 (a sales contract) and the testimony of the non-party 3 of the trial witness non-party 3, and there is no other evidence sufficient to recognize it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed because the plaintiff's claim for the principal lawsuit based on the premise that the plaintiff has the right to pass through the public land of the defendant et al. is without merit, and the judgment of the court below with the same conclusion is just and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 384, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Kim Jung-tae (Presiding Judge)