logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원공주지원 2017.11.30 2016가단21338
청구이의
Text

1. Daejeon District Court Decision 2015Na1076 decided January 13, 2016, against Plaintiff A and Plaintiff B’s succeeding Intervenor C

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On the basis of the facts based on which the date of closing argument in the Daejeon District Court 2015Na10076 case (as of December 9, 2015), Plaintiff A and the Plaintiff (Withdrawal) (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) shared 1/2 shares of 463 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is the owner of F&219 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).

B. The Defendant’s land is adjacent to the Defendant of the instant lawsuit, as indicated on the adjacent cadastral editing map (the part indicated as “Plaintiff” on the adjacent cadastral editing map in attached Form 1, and the part indicated as “Defendants” refers to the Plaintiff A and the Plaintiff (Withdrawal) B of the instant lawsuit) owned by G, 456 square meters prior to H, 861 square meters adjacent to the J, J, and K, and 741 square meters prior to L owned by G, and is adjacent to the north of the said land.

Secondly, the passage from Defendant’s land to Defendant’s public service was passed through the official land (hereinafter “M land”) and the passage was passed along the line connecting the Plaintiffs’ land from 4 to 6 points indicated in Annex 2, and the passage using the I land. However, the owner of I land was unable to fill up a stone at a height of about 2 meters on the Defendant’s land and to enter the Defendant’s public service by using the I land. Accordingly, the passage through the M land and the passage through the Plaintiffs’ land could only be a contribution to Defendant’s land.

x) On May 10, 2014, after the Defendant was prohibited from entering the Republic of Korea through I’s land, Plaintiff A and Plaintiff B, as described in the foregoing paragraph, built a stone 1.5m high and 5m high in length on the line connecting the Plaintiffs’ land to 6, 7, 8, and 9m in the separate sheet No. 2 from May 14, 2014. Accordingly, the Defendant was prohibited from entering the Republic of Korea by using the Plaintiffs’ land.

B. Plaintiffs A and the Plaintiff (Withdrawal).

arrow