beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) KRW 22,22,600 and interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from December 10, 2013 to the date of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 40 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), and the Defendant is the owner of the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D-16 square meters adjacent to the said land (hereinafter “instant adjacent land”) and the said housing (hereinafter “instant housing”).
B. Around 190, the Defendant, at the time of purchasing the instant housing, acquired a customary part of the water unit located under the ground of the instant septic tank (0.91m, 0.91m, 0.91m, 0.82m, 0.82m, hereinafter “instant septic tank”). A part of the said septic tank (0.49mm, 0.49m,) is located under the ground of the instant land.
C. The current fence was installed by the Plaintiff around 1991, and the Defendant had the right to stop from that time, the Defendant had the right to stop between the wall and the outer wall of the instant house [the part (b) of the instant land, which connects each point of the attached drawing Nos. 1, 12, 8, 7, 6, 5, and 1 among the instant land (hereinafter “the part (b) of the instant land”).
[Attachment 12, 2, 11, 10, 9, 8, and 12] and the attached Form 12, 2, 11, 10, 9, 8, and 12.
The plaintiff had access to a public road. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant that sought removal of the septic tank of this case and delivery of the land on which the septic tank of this case was installed by Seoul Western District Court 2010Kadan3998, and that the plaintiff interfered with the fence construction of the plaintiff on the boundary of the land of this case and the neighboring land of this case. The appellate court of the above case acknowledged the defendant's right of passage over surrounding land to use the space between the wall of this case and the outer wall of the house of this case as a passage in order to use it as a passage necessary for the use of the adjacent land of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's installation of a new wall on the boundary of the land of this case is the defendant's right of passage over surrounding land.