Main Issues

Cases where the right to passage over surrounding land is not recognized;

Summary of Judgment

On the same side of the land owned by the Plaintiff, a width of approximately 1.5 meters adjoining the site of this case. On the northwest, the railroad site of approximately 1.3 meters wide is the station site, and the passage of about 1.3 meters wide on the northwest may enter the passage of about 4.5 meters wide to this channel. If the passage can be linked to a railroad crossing, the site of this case has a passage necessary for the use of the site between the road and the road, so it cannot be said that the part of the wall of the Defendant-owned is destroyed and the passage of the railroad site, which is the station part, is the right to pass on that part, on the ground that the building permit is impossible.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 219(1) of the Civil Act

Plaintiff-Appellant

Busan Petroleum Corporation

Defendant-Appellee

Korea

original decision

Daegu High Court Decision 75Na589 delivered on March 5, 1976

Text

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged that the land of this case owned by the plaintiff was a public notice purchased on November 25, 1971 and completed the registration of ownership transfer, and that the same side is in contact with the site of this case with approximately 90§¯ in a size of about 50§¯ in a size of about 50§¯ than the site of this case, and that the lot of railway in the west is in a line of about 1m and about 30cm in the northwest and a passage of about 4m and about 50m in a width to the northwest can enter a path with a width of about 4m and that this passage can be connected to the railroad crossing, and therefore, the land of this case owned by the plaintiff was not a way necessary for the use of the land of this case, and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's right to use the part of the land of this case, which was the building permit of this case, and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's right to use the land of this case and the building permit of this case was not a passage of this case.