logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2021.02.17 2020노4865
업무방해등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The land C in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) is not a road, and D land cannot be used on the basis of the right to passage around the surrounding land, and D land has a separate road that can pass through, and the Defendant’s act of piling goods on the road of this case cannot constitute a obstruction of business.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted all of the violation of road traffic law and obstruction of business is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant argued to the same effect as this part of the judgment below, and the lower court determined that the instant land is a road under the Road Traffic Act, and the Defendant’s act of piling up the goods constitutes interference with the business by explaining detailed reasons in the judgment on the issue of “A” among the lower judgment.

A thorough examination of the relevant legal principles and records, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the court of the original instance based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court is just and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The defendant's factual mistake and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

1) The instant land is an open area where the residents and visitors of the said house freely use the land as access to the house constructed on J land, and thus, they need safe and smooth traffic, even if they were to use the land as access to the said house.

2) Although it appears that E did not secure the right to use the land of this case, it is the relief of the right under the Civil Act, such as a claim for prohibition of passage.

arrow