beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to the above part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except where the defendant added “additional Judgment” as to the assertion added or emphasized by this court, and thus, it is identical to the corresponding column of the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s land is not a master, and that the Plaintiff’s land should not be recognized as the right of passage over surrounding land, as it is possible to pass through the instant stone wingway located in L, M, and N through the J-gun D (hereinafter “D”) through the scopic path on the Plaintiff’s land.
B. According to the results of the fact-finding conducted by this court on the G, M, and N, if a temporary use report is made as a plan to restore a minimum area (within three meters in width) within a forest to a mountainous district after using the Plaintiff’s land for a certain period of time between the Plaintiff’s land and the M, M, and N, the fact that it is possible to create a forest product transport route or work, etc. therein
However, according to the above-mentioned fin evidence, Gap evidence No. 11, and the result of the on-site inspection by the court of the first instance, and the whole purport of the pleadings, it is difficult to build permanent roads using L, M, and N, and it is also difficult to grant permission for the permanent establishment of a farm road to the extent that the plaintiff's land and L, M, and N land can move to a different fin route after conversion. Moreover, it is narrow to the extent that one person can walk to the plaintiff's land, L, M, and N land, and the fact that one person turns to a fin route with the plaintiff's land and L, M, and N is higher than 18∑ or 30∑. Thus, in light of the situation of the use of the plaintiff's land, it is difficult to regard it as a passage necessary for its use.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the land of the plaintiff is not a franchise is without merit.
3. Accordingly, in conclusion: