beta
Text
The judgment below
Among them, the part against the plaintiff is reversed, and this part of the case is to the Cheongju District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. On the grounds of appeal by the Defendant, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the Defendant concluded, instead of using the instant land, that the Plaintiff would use the Defendant’s land equivalent to the area of the said land, was lawfully terminated according to the Plaintiff’s intention of termination. Moreover, the Defendant is prohibited from entering the Defendant’s farm without using the instant land
The Defendant determined that the right to passage over the surrounding land of this case cannot be acknowledged on the ground that it cannot be readily determined that the passage is excessive.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s fact-finding and determination are justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles
2. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal
A. Article 136(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The presiding judge may ask the parties questions, and urge them to testify, on the factual or legal matters, in order to clarify the litigation relations.” Article 136(4) provides that “The court shall give the parties an opportunity to state their opinions on the legal matters which the parties have deemed to be excessive.”
The principle of pleading does not have a duty to ask whether or not the party asserts the matter itself which is responsible for claiming. However, if there is a clear and unreasonable legal matter due to the party's negligence or misunderstanding, or if the party's assertion is not clear or incomplete or contradictory from a legal point of view, the court shall actively exercise the right of explanation and give the party an opportunity to state his opinion.