logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.06.27 2017가합1815
통행권확인 등
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff owned the land (which does not have any part adjacent to the contribution surrounded by the land owned by the mother) and the housing on the ground, and is a person residing in the said housing. The Defendant owned the land C, D, E, and F adjacent to the instant franchise (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. From 192 to 192, the Plaintiff used the part (a) through (d) of the instant land as a passage to contribute to the franchise of this case, and the residents have used it as a passage for a long time. In around 2009, the Defendant purchased the instant land with knowledge that the Plaintiff used it as a passage.

C. When using the above part of paragraphs (a) through (d) above, the Plaintiff obtained a passage necessary for the Plaintiff’s daily life, while the above part of paragraphs (a) through (d) above correspond to the part of the land owned by the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff’s use of the above part of paragraphs (a) through (d) is the part of the land owned by the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff is deemed to be able to pass

However, on October 2016, the Defendant set up a line on the instant land for the first time, and obstructed the Plaintiff’s use of the passage.

Therefore, the plaintiff seeks confirmation of the right of passage to the above (a) through (d), removal of obstacles and exclusion of interference with passage of the above (a) to the defendant.

2. Determination

A. The right of passage over surrounding land, stipulated in Article 219 of the Civil Act, is a right based on the adjustment of mutual use of adjacent land, and recognized as a right of use over surrounding land to a person, such as a landowner or a superficiary and a person

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da22767, May 8, 2008).

The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff is the owner or superficies of the instant franchise, and the person having chonsegwon, and it is otherwise recognized.

arrow