2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: D, E, F, and G (hereinafter “D”) adjacent to the instant forest.

A) The owner of H, I, J, and K delegated all matters concerning afforestation projects, such as felling and extracting forest trees in D, etc., and the Defendant, who acquired the forest of this case by auction, interfered with the passage of the forest of this case by installing a steel door, etc. on the dispute part of this case. (2) The dispute part of this case was used for long time for public use, thus allowing anyone to pass through. In addition, in order for the Plaintiff to pass through the forest of this case, there is no passage other than the dispute part of this case, the Defendant is obligated to confirm the Plaintiff’s right to passage over surrounding land over the dispute part of this case, and the Plaintiff can freely pass through the surrounding land through the right to passage over the land of this case. Therefore, the removal of the said iron door also seeks the removal of the said iron paper.

B. Determination 1) In a case where there is no passage between a certain land and a public road for the use of the land, and the owner of the land is unable to enter the public road without passing over the surrounding land or having access to the surrounding land, or requiring excessive expenses, he may pass over the surrounding land (Article 219(1) of the Civil Act). Meanwhile, in the case of a person holding superficies, Articles 290 and 319 of the Civil Act Article 219 of the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis under Article 219 of the Civil Act, not only the owner of the surrounding land but also the person holding superficies or the person holding superficies (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 75Da1958, Sept. 13, 197).