Whether a public announcement used as a passage and used as a parking lot for public use by the same method and packaging can be seen as an occupation of the above land.

Even if the defendant, who established a branch office in the vicinity of the land used as a parking lot and used it as a road planning line under the Urban Planning Act after being assigned to the road planning line under the Urban Planning Act, has been abandoned as an open space without prohibiting the construction of buildings, etc., it cannot be deemed that the owner had occupied the land by excluding the past management, possession, and possession, and it does not affect the result by the defendant by packaging the land for the convenience of customers.

Article 192 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Da923 delivered on July 16, 1974 (Article 192(11) of the Civil Act, 497, 807, et al.)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Seoul Bank, Inc.

Seoul Central District Court (69A13832) in the first instance trial

The original judgment shall be modified as follows:

피고는 원고가 서울 중구 을지로 4가 43 대 21평중 별지도면 표시 ㅅ, ㄹ, ㅁ, ㄴ, ㅌ, ㅋ, ㅊ, ㅈ, ㅅ 각 점을 연결하는 선으로 둘러 싸인 가부분 20평 지상에 철조망을 설치하는 행위를 방해하여서는 안된다.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 171,630 won with an interest of 5% per annum from March 1, 1970 to the date of full payment, and the amount equivalent to 2,760 won per month from the above date to the date of order for the same part among the real estate stated in the above paragraph (2).

The plaintiff's appeal and remaining claims are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be five minutes for the first and second trials, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant, and the remainder shall be borne by the plaintiff.

원고소송대리인은 피고는 원고에 대하여 서울 중구 을지로 4가 43 대 21평중 별지도면 표시 ㅅ, ㄹ, ㅁ, ㄴ, ㅌ, ㅋ, ㅊ, ㅈ, ㅅ 각 점을 연결하는 선으로 둘러 싸인 가부분 20평을 명도하고 원고가 위 지상에 철조망을 설치하는 행위를 방해하여서는 아니된다.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 3,604,230 won with 5% interest per annum from March 1, 1970 to the date of full payment, and 57,960 won per annum from March 1, 1970 to the date of full payment.

The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution were sought.

The defendant¡¯s attorney shall revoke the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of litigation have been assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances, and the plaintiff's attorney shall revoke the part against the plaintiff in the original judgment.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 3,235,620 won with 5% interest per annum from March 1, 1970 to the date of full payment.

The court of first and second instances sought a judgment and a declaration of provisional execution that all the costs of lawsuit will be borne by the defendant.

In light of the above facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 (Determination), 4-1, 5-2 (Statement), 7-1, and 1-2 (No. 1-6) of the above land, which were owned by the above-mentioned land as a result of the above-mentioned appraisal by the above-mentioned land owner, and the above-mentioned land was owned by the above-mentioned land owner for the purpose of calculating the above-mentioned land size No. 1. 43-2 and 41 of the above-mentioned land, which were not owned by the above-mentioned Seoul Central District Court for the purpose of calculating the above-mentioned land size No. 1. 43-1 and No. 41 of the above land and the above-mentioned land owned by the above-mentioned land size No. 1, the bank had no effect on the construction of the above-mentioned land by the above-mentioned land size No. 1, and the bank had no effect on the construction of the above-mentioned land for the purpose of calculating the above-mentioned land size No. 2. 3 of the above.

Next, the plaintiff's above part A of 20 square meters against the plaintiff's claim for the prohibition of interference with the installation of steel nets, and the defendant's land is designated as an urban planning zone, so construction, reconstruction, extension or removal of structures, or addition or installation of goods pursuant to Article 13 subparagraph 2 of the Urban Planning Act must obtain permission from the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City. However, the plaintiff is not permitted, and such permission is a procedure prepared to ensure the smooth progress of the urban planning project by the administrative authorities, and it is not a ground for refusing or obstructing the defendant bank's act of installing steel nets as the exercise of ownership.

그렇다면 피고는 원고가 본건 서울 중구 을지로 4가 43 대 21평중 별지도면 표시 ㅅ, ㄹ, ㅁ, ㄴ, ㅌ, ㅋ, ㅊ, ㅈ, ㅅ 각 점을 연결하는 선으로 둘러 싸인 가부분 20평 지상에 철조망을 설치하는 행위를 방해하여서는 아니되고 또한 원고에 대하여 금 171,630원 및 이에 대한 1970.3.1.부터 완제일까지 연 5푼의 비율에 의한 민사법정 지연손해금과 위 본건 부동산중 같은 도면표시 나부분 1평을 명도할 때까지 매월 금 2,760원의 비율에 의한 금원을 지급할 의무있다 할 것이므로 원고의 본소 청구는 위 인정 한도에서 정당하다 하여 인용하고 나머지 청구는 실당하다 하여 기각할 것인즉 원판결중 이와 결론을 달리하는 부분은 실당하므로 민사소송법 386조 에 의하여 그 부분 원판결을 변경하기로 하고 소송비용의 부담에 관하여는 같은법 96조 , 89조 , 92조 를 적용하여 주문과 같이 판결한다.

Judges Jeon Soo-chul (Presiding Judge)