(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.02.06 2014가단20393

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.02.06 2014가단20393

주위토지통행권확인청구

Text

1. Defendant (Appointed Party) and Appointed C, and D:

A. Of the 241m2, the attached drawings shall be indicated to the Plaintiff among the 241m3m2 of Incheon-gun roads.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s land is the land owned by the Plaintiff, and the E-road 241 square meters adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) was owned by the network G. As the network G died on October 15, 1997, the Defendant (Appointed Party), the appointed party, C, and D (hereinafter “Defendant”) inherited one-third shares, respectively, as he died on or around October 15, 1997.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff has a right to passage over the surrounding land to the plaintiff's land in order to contribute to the plaintiff's land.

The defendants asserts that since the plaintiff has already filed the same lawsuit against the defendant, the lawsuit of this case is inappropriate as it constitutes a duplicate lawsuit, and also that it is more appropriate to pass the land of the Incheon Strengthening Group H and I to enter the land as a contribution from the plaintiff's land.

3. Determination

A. Article 259 of the Civil Procedure Act prohibits double lawsuit by stipulating that “A party shall not institute a lawsuit again on a case pending in a court” (Article 259 of the Civil Procedure Act).

According to each of the evidence Nos. 1-5 and 1-5, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Defendants on March 26, 2013. On June 26, 2013, the mediation between the plaintiff and the Defendants on June 26, 2013 that "the plaintiff has withdrawn the lawsuit in this case, and the Defendants have consented thereto," can be acknowledged that the lawsuit has been terminated.

Therefore, the previous suit brought by the Plaintiff on March 26, 2013 according to the content of the conciliation was concluded upon withdrawal of the suit on June 26, 2013. As long as the previous suit was already withdrawn, it does not constitute a duplicate suit as stipulated in Article 259 of the Civil Procedure Act.

. The defendants are also the defendants.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제259조

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2019.02.13 2017가단219088

-대구지방법원 2016.05.27 2015가단113931

-인천지방법원 2017.11.28 2016가단209893

-서울중앙지방법원 2012.02.15 2011나28013