An application for a temporary injunction to remove piles that ‘impede vehicle movement’ was rejected by the court, saying, “Passage is possible due to damage to the piles”

Installing stakes in the only passage, ‘violation of the right to freedom of passage’ vs. ‘Purpose of protecting the fence and encouraging safe driving’
Suwon District Court Pyeongtaek Support “Consent to use has the effect of a bond, and there is no hindrance to the passage of people or general vehicles.”

There was a case where the court did not accept a request for a temporary injunction to prohibit traffic obstruction filed by a factory owner against a nearby landowner, claiming that piles installed on the only road leading to a public road made it impossible for vehicles to drive.

It was confirmed that the 1st Civil Division of the Pyeongtaek Branch of the Suwon District Court (Presiding Judge Jo Jung-woong, Judge Jeong Young-min and Kim Yun-jin) decided on December 18 last year to dismiss the application for a provisional injunction filed by factory owner A against landowner B.

In this lawsuit, Mr. A claimed, “Mr. B is blocking the passage of vehicles by putting up stakes on the only road leading to his factory,” and emphasized, “Mr. B had been using the road for nearly 20 years with permission to use the passage even before he owned it, but the stakes infringed on his right to freedom of passage.”

In response to this, Mr. B refuted, “The fence along the road was frequently damaged due to vehicles heading to Mr. A’s factory, so to prevent this, we simply installed a pole to encourage safe driving of the vehicle.”

In addition, he requested that the claim be dismissed, saying, “If you reduce your speed and adjust your turning radius, you can pass through the passage without any problems.”

The Pyeongtaek Branch of Suwon District Court, which heard this case, ruled in favor of Mr. B.

The court ruled that “there may be inconvenience to the passage of vehicles driven by creditors due to the stakes installed in the passageway,” but that “there is no obstruction to the passage of people or general vehicles.”

He then dismissed Mr. A's claim, saying, “Although we received permission for use from the previous owner, this cannot lead to approval from the current owner, the debtor.”

Attorney Park Hyeong-geon of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. B in this trial, said, “For a traffic obstruction ban to be recognized, there must be circumstances that indicate that the creditor’s actions have violated the debtor’s freedom of passage, such as interfering with the debtor’s daily life.” He added, “Mr.

Reporter Son Dong-wook (twson@lawleader.co.kr)

[View full article]
Application for temporary injunction to remove piles that ‘obstruct the operation of vehicles’... Court rejects “passage is possible due to damage to piles” (link)