1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments to the allegations made at the court of first instance. Therefore, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. The Plaintiff added the part of the instant military installation, which is an obstacle for battles and military purposes under the Protection of Military Bases and Installations Act, and each of the instant land constitutes “site where a building is constructed” and the Defendant established non-packaged access roads since the early 1970s, and installed the instant military installation. The military unit using the instant military installation consented to the application for development activities to build a new detached house on each of the instant land in around 2017, and expressed its opinion to continue to use the said military installation. The Defendant asserts that the entire land of the instant case is occupied as a whole, since such characteristics of the military installation interfere with the Plaintiff’s exercise of ownership due to the nature of the military installation.

살피건대, ① 이 사건 각 토지의 경계에 군사시설임을 나타내는 경고판이나 철조망 등 울타리가 설치되어 있지 아니하고, 일반 차량이 위 각 토지까지 접근할 수 있는 점, ② 제1심 측량감정인은 대전차장애물인 용치가 산재하여 설치되어 있는 부분(제1심판결 별지2 도면 표시 89, 92 내지 96, 89의 각 점을 차례로 연결한 선내 ㉻ 부분 48㎡, 같은 도면 표시 84, 97 내지 100, 86, 85, 84의 각 점을 차례로 연결한 선내 부분 88㎡)의 경우 용치와 용치 사이의 면적을 포함하여 측량한 점, ③ 교통호, 유개호 등이 평지가 아닌 경사지에 위치해 있고, 개인호, 교통호가 대전차장애물 쪽을 향하고 있다는 사정만으로는 이 사건 군사시설 사이의 공간까지 모두 전투진지에 해당한다고 할 수는 없고, 소유자가 위 사이 부분을...