beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be principal lawsuit and counterclaim.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as follows, except where the plaintiff uses the same judgment as that of the court of first instance, or where the plaintiff addss the same judgment as that of the court of first instance as that of the plaintiff's new or new argument, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil
[Supplementary Use] Part 4th 19th 19th 1 of the judgment of the first instance court "A. Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Land" shall be applied to "A. Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul S Land."
2. Additional determination
A. In relation to whether the Plaintiff’s right to passage over surrounding land was recognized, Defendant B consented to the use of the adjoining land of this case as a passage around February 2009. It should be viewed as a result of considering all the topographical and locational shapes of the instant land and the adjoining land of this case.
B) Therefore, even if the Plaintiff’s right to passage over the surrounding land as to the part of the land indicated in the purport of the claim in this case’s neighboring land is recognized, the Plaintiff’s right to passage over the surrounding land should not be denied on the ground of such circumstance. (2) In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff’s agent, around February 2009, requested the Defendant B to affix a seal on the written consent to use the land containing the purport that “the Plaintiff consented to the use of the surrounding land as a road necessary for the building permit.” The Defendant B affixed a seal on the said written consent to use the surrounding land, which includes the following contents.
However, considering the following circumstances that can be recognized by taking into account the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, Defendant C’s will will in the future without confirming the intention of Defendant C, a co-owner of the adjoining land of this case.