주위토지통행권확인 등
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the 443 square meters in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun (hereinafter “D”) and the Defendant Republic of Korea is the owner of the C cemetery 284 square meters adjacent to the northwest of the said land (hereinafter “C”).
B. On February 9, 1988, Defendant B borrowed and used land C from Defendant Republic of Korea. At present, there are two graves in Defendant B’s tide.
C. E is growing D land as dry field with the consent of the Plaintiff while residing in a house and warehouse on the G land owned by the Seosan Saemaeul Farming Association adjacent to the south of D land.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 5, 17, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3 and 5 (including each number, if any), the result of field inspection by the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim
A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that there is no passage necessary for the use of D land between D and D public land owned by the Plaintiff, and the part of the instant dispute is not only the only passage through which access to D public land can be made on D public land, but also the passage through which the owner of the surrounding land is the largest economic loss. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has a right to passage over surrounding land to the said part of the dispute, and Defendant B is obliged not to perform any act interfering with the Plaintiff’s passage over the said part of the dispute.
B. The right of passage over surrounding land, stipulated in Article 219 of the Civil Act, is particularly recognized as at the risk of damage to the owner of the land under way for the public interest, which is the use of land without a passage necessary for its use, between the public interest and the public interest. As such, in determining the width, location, etc. of the passage route, the method of causing less damage to the owner of the land under way should be considered (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da70144, Jun. 2, 2006).