토지
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2.(a)
Of the 3101 square meters prior to Jeju-si, the Defendant indicated in the attached Form 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court is the owner in Section 7 of Section 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the following facts are cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for adding a part of the "(the land was originally owned by G, and the land was inherited by the plaintiff by consultation division on October 5, 2006)."
2. The parties' assertion
A. In order to set up a farm building on the Plaintiff’s land, the Plaintiff used a passage way to the south part of the Defendant’s land, between E and the Plaintiff’s land. The Defendant installed a stone fence at the entrance for the purpose of obstructing it, and made the instant wave de facto with the passage.
Therefore, the Plaintiff has the right to open and pass along the passage of the instant part, which is 3 meters wide to the inside of the instant order, along with the passage of the said part. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of the right to pass over the surrounding part of the said part of the said case against the Defendant and sought prohibition of interference with passage over the said part of the said subparagraph.
B. The Plaintiff had been engaged in long-term cultivation using the passage formed along the internal boundary line of the F-si land adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land of this case (hereinafter “F-land”). After the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff opened a new passage in Jeju-si, H, I and J land adjacent to the north direction of the instant land for the purpose of cultivating the Plaintiff’s land.
Therefore, it is possible for the Plaintiff to enter a public road through each of the above land, so the right to access the Defendant’s land should not be additionally allowed.
3. Determination
A. The right of passage over surrounding land, as stipulated in Article 219 of the Civil Act, is particularly recognized to be at the risk of the damage of the owner of the right of passage to the public interest, for the purpose of using the land without the necessary passage between the public interest and the meritorious service.