beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance, including the Plaintiff’s claim extended by this court, shall be modified as follows.
The plaintiff.
Reasons
The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is to be changed to “ May 22, 2017,” “Article 412,50,000,000” in the main sentence of paragraph (2) 1 of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance is to be changed to “ KRW 412,00,000 ( KRW 412,50,000,000 for an indirect compulsory performance (= KRW 500,000 for a day 50,000 x 825 days)”; and (c) the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance is to be cited in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition of the following judgments:
2. The defendant's additional determination means that the defendant's act of obstructing traffic" in Paragraph 3 of the order of provisional disposition order of this case means that the defendant's act of hindering the passage of the road of this case by piling obstructions, etc. on the ground of the road of this case constitutes an infringement on the plaintiff's right of passage of pedestrians and automobiles. Notwithstanding the installation of the pents of this case, the road of this case is at least 2.4m wide, so the plaintiff did not substantially impede the passage of the road of this case. Thus, the defendant did not violate Paragraph 3
However, according to the text of Paragraph 3 of the provisional disposition order of this case, it is difficult to interpret it in a limited manner like the defendant's assertion.
The Defendant’s installation of the instant pents became narrow to narrow the width of the instant road. Accordingly, it is apparent that the Plaintiff would have been hindered in passing the instant road compared to the situation where the instant pents did not exist. As such, such an act by the Defendant constitutes interfering with the Plaintiff’s passage of the instant road.
In addition, considering the location, size, location of the road of this case and the pents of this case, the Defendant appears to have installed the pents of this case with the intent to obstruct the Plaintiff’s passage of the road of this case. In addition, the Defendant installed the pents of this case on the road of this case.