logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원홍성지원 2015.10.07 2015가단4771
토지인도
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. On April 9, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the area of 1,076 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) prior to Chungcheongnam-gun budget-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

Of the instant real estate, the portion of (b) 127 square meters in the ship connecting each point of (b) 8 through 18, and 8, among the instant real estate, was actually used as a passage from before around 1960, and was packed as concrete by the implementation of the Saemaeul Project around 1980.

On September 30, 1994, the road of this case was designated and announced as rural roads (class : Do , Do , route name : C: Do , time : Do : Do , Do : Do , Do : Do , Do Do - e)

Around 2002, the Defendant performed a package work for the instant road, and the instant road has been offered for the passage of the general public and vehicles until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-1, 1-2, Eul 1, 7, 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant occupies the road management authority or de facto controlling authority of the road of this case. Thus, the defendant, as the owner of the real estate of this case, has the duty to remove the packaging parts of the road of this case, such as the container, and deliver the road of this case to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserted the waiver of the right to use and benefit from the instant road, which was the former owner of the instant real estate, and the F, G, and H did not claim against the Defendant the compensation or usage fee for the instant road, which may be deemed to have waived the exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from the instant road.

The Plaintiff, even though being aware of the fact that the instant road is being used as a road, purchased it, and thus, accepted at least the fact that there is a burden of restricting the right to use and benefit from the instant road.

arrow