beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On Nov. 1, 2004, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to D large 1,580 square meters, E large 14,589 square meters, F large 661 square meters, G large 103 square meters, and H large 306 square meters (hereinafter “the above land owned by the Defendant”). The Defendant leased a building on the land owned by the Defendant or used it as a grain storage place.
Meanwhile, on July 7, 2010, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land.
B. On March 20, 2008, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking delivery, etc. of the above passage, against the Defendant, on which the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation that he had access to the above passage (the counterclaim District Court Decision 2013Da15243 (main lawsuit), 2014Gadan50601 (Counterclaim), hereinafter referred to as “related lawsuit”). The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking confirmation that he had access to the passage (the counterclaim District Court Decision 2013Da15243 (main lawsuit), 2014Gadan50601 (Counterclaim), hereinafter referred to as “related lawsuit”).
C. During the relevant lawsuit, L had opened a substitute road on the land of this case, which is owned by the Plaintiff with the Plaintiff’s approval for land use from the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff consented to the use of the land of this case as a passage to the land owned by the Defendant, and thereafter, the Defendant’s counterclaim was dismissed on the ground that the Defendant’s right to passage to the surrounding land of this case was extinguished due to the construction of a substitute road, and the Defendant’s appeal (Seoul District Court 2015Na102406 (Counterclaim), 2015Na102413 (Counterclaim)) but the part of the Defendant’s claim for confirmation of the right to passage to surrounding land of 238 square meters among the 4,643 square meters prior to Seosan City, Seosan-si, the part of the claim for confirmation of the right to passage to the surrounding land of 238 square meters was dismissed.
The defendant currently has access to the portion of the land of this case from the land owned by the defendant.