According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the defendant's assertion that the non-party 1's above non-party 3 and the non-party 2's prior owner of the above part of the non-party 36's 36's 36's 36's 36's 36's 36's 36's 36's 36's 36's 36's 36's 9's 9's 36's 36's 9's 36's 9's 36's 9's 36's 9's 9's 36's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 36's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 1's 36's 36's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.

In addition, since a land owner has no passage between a certain land and a public road, it is possible to pass the surrounding land to enter a public road, or to establish it as a passage, and it does not have the right of exclusion from the possession of the owner of the passage land. Therefore, the owner of the passage land may enjoy profit from the land (passing land) and thus, he/she shall have the right of de facto control over the land, and the person who has the right of access due to the upper relationship with another person's land can only use the land within the scope of the right of passage. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pass the above part (A) to the defendant's right of passage to the 9th grade of land (Article 219 of the Civil Code) so that the defendant cannot refuse the passage of the land, or the defendant is entitled to pass the said land, and thus the plaintiff's right of access to the said land cannot be ruled out because he/she has the right of passage to the said person. Therefore, the plaintiff's right of access against the defendant who exclusively occupies the above land should be claimed the transfer of the land.

(1) The court below's decision which accepted the plaintiff's claim is justified and the defendant's right to passage over the surrounding land does not lose its right to passage over the surrounding land. In this regard, the court below's decision which accepted the plaintiff's claim is not erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to ownership and possession right and other legal principles as stipulated in Article 219 of the Civil Act, or in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to legal theory, incomplete hearing, and lack of reasoning, etc., and the court below's decision on the merits is not appropriate in this case, and it cannot be concluded that there

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-chul (Presiding Justice)