1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff by the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2013Kadan15190 Decided July 24, 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C large 16 square meters and its ground, and the Defendant is the owner of the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D large 40 square meters adjacent thereto (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Plaintiff began to purchase and reside in the above house around 1990, and the above house was installed with a entrance on the part indicated in the attached Form 12 as indicated in the attached Form 12, and the Plaintiff was using part of the instant land owned by the Defendant while entering a public road through this place.

In around 191, the Defendant installed a fence on the line along which the points of the Annex No. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 of the land in this case were connected to each point of the Annex No. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 of the land in this case. From that time, the space that the Plaintiff is able to use for access to a road was reduced to the Defendant’s wall and the Plaintiff’s house space [the area of the column No. 1, 12, 8, 7, 6, 5, and 1 of the Annex No. 12, 2, 11, 10, 9, 8, and 12 of the Annex No. 3 of the Map No. 2, 2,

In a prior lawsuit between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the judgment was rendered that “(b) the Plaintiff’s right to passage over the surrounding land was established, and installing a new fence at this place would interfere with the Plaintiff’s exercise of the Plaintiff’s right to passage over the surrounding land, and thus, not permitted.”

(Seoul Western District Court Decision 201Na7776 Decided March 29, 2012). On the other hand, some of the customary divers of the concrete structure attached to the Plaintiff’s housing attached to the said housing (Garo 0.91m in length, 0.91m in height, 0.91m in height, 0.82m in height, hereinafter referred to as “instant septic tank”) over the boundary, and was located under the ground of the remedy for damages.

(0.49 square meters in size).

피고는 2013. 4. 19. 원고에 대하여 민법 제219조 제2항에 의하여 원고가 ㈁, ㈂ 부분에 관하여 주위토지통행권을 행사함에 따른 손해의 보상을 청구하는 소를 제기하였고, 이 사건에서 '원고는 피고에게 ㈎ 2003. 4. 20.부터 2013. 10. 2.까지의 임료...