beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the first instance court.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Daejeon Dong-gu Daejeon Special Metropolitan City C. 143.7 square meters and its ground buildings and E roads 16.2 square meters are owned by F. The adjacent D. D. 135.6 square meters are owned by G. The third floor of the ground is owned by the Defendant.
(The location of each land shall be see Attached 2 cadastral map). (b)
The details of transfer registration of ownership of each of the above lands and housing are as follows:
(hereinafter referred to as "land") No. 1-2 is used as an access road to the land of No. 1-1.
Details of the lot number transfer Nos. 11-1 C on June 13, 1989, the registration of relocation in the future of F on June 13, 1989 was made on July 20, 2016, building 1-2 E Road 2D on July 20, 2016. The registration of relocation in the G future on December 12, 2016;
C. The F died on April 26, 1999, and the Plaintiff is one of the heirs of F.
[Grounds for recognition] Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5-8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Assertion and determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The fence installed on the boundary of the land No. 1-2 and the land No. 2 as shown in the annexed Form No. 1 is the heir F of the land owner F (including the Plaintiff; hereinafter “Plaintiff”).
(2) The Plaintiff, as a co-owner of land 1, seeks to restore the fence, fence, and sidewalk block to its original state or pay KRW 3,135,00,00 to its original state for the purpose of preserving the jointly-owned property, as shown in the separate sheet No. 1, for the purpose of the preservation of the jointly-owned property.
B. 1) Determination 1 is not allowed for a landowner to remove the existing boundary marks or fences without the consent of the owner of the adjoining land, unless the owner of the land unilaterally has the authority to dispose of the existing boundary marks or fences, which determine the claim of the cost of restoration to the original state or restoration to the original state (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da6063, Aug. 26, 1997).