logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.08.10 2015가단237799
주위통행권확인등 청구
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 31, 2008, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of 17m2, D, 957m2, and E, 961m2 (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”) prior to Busan, but the land owned by the Plaintiff is so-called so-called marine which is not adjacent to the road on the cadastral map from this point, and the Plaintiff is growing the cattle on the said land.

B. On December 19, 2001, the Defendant decided to newly install the water supply system, which is an urban planning facility, at the Busan Northern District public notice HH on December 19, 2001, for the smooth supply of water to the Busan F and G residents.

On March 3, 2014, the Defendant acquired real estate in B B in Busan, pursuant to the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor, and converted the land category into a water supply site. On March 3, 2014, the Defendant converted the land category into a water supply site of 12466m2 (hereinafter “instant land”).

C. On June 10, 2009, the Defendant completed the construction of JLS and the construction of drainage facilities, such as reclaiming drainage pipes, etc. At present, the Defendant’s vehicle and human resources necessary for the maintenance, repair, replacement, etc. of water pipes are passing through the drainage pipe that supplies water from JLS to JLS, and the underground route of the instant land is passing through the drainage pipe that supplies water to F and G Dong areas. As concrete packaging is made on the ground, the Defendant’s vehicle and human resources are passing through and are used for the passage of neighboring residents.

Of the instant land, the gradient of the part (A) part (a) and 412 square meters (hereinafter “the part (a) of the instant land”) connected each point of the instant land is reasonable. In order to protect waterworks, the Defendant installed an entry prohibition sealing that restricts the entry of external vehicles in the part (b) of the instant land (hereinafter “the part (b) of the instant land”) (hereinafter “the instant land”) which are connected in order to protect waterworks.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and Eul Nos. 1 through 9.

arrow