beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim extended at the trial room, shall be modified as follows:
The defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 2,734 square meters prior to Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”). The Defendant is the owner of 1,860 square meters for O farm land, 156 square meters for C road, and 130 square meters prior to D, respectively (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).
B. The Plaintiff sets up a farm shed on the Plaintiff’s land, and the Defendant operates a stable on the Defendant’s land.
C. The Plaintiff’s land is Kimcheon-si F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, M, and N. It is not allowed to enter the public road without passing over the surrounding land.
The Plaintiff, among the Defendant’s land, has access to the Plaintiff’s land using the part (B) of the attached Form No. 1,2, 3, 16 through 20, and 1 of the attached Form No. 130 square meters among the 156 square meters of the attached Form No. 3 through 16, and 3 of the attached Form No. 156 square meters of the land among the 156 square meters of land in Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si, and the part (B) connected in order to each point of the 1,2, 3, 16 through 20, and 1 of the attached Form No. 130 square meters of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 16 through 20
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry and video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including each number if there is a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply)
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff had a farming shed in the Plaintiff’s land and had access to a public road through the surrounding land of this case since the Defendant interfered with the passage of the surrounding land of this case, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of the right to passage over the surrounding land of this case and prohibition of interference with the Plaintiff’s passage over the surrounding land of this case.
B. If the Plaintiff used the surrounding land of this case as a passage, it would inflict a significant damage on the stable operated by the Defendant.
In addition, the plaintiff is now existing in addition to the surrounding land of this case.