통행권확인
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' with respect to the matters emphasized by the plaintiffs in the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
(a) A right to passage over surrounding land under Article 219 of the Civil Act may be acknowledged, if not only is it impossible to control a public road surrounded by a land owned by another person, but also a separate access road exists, if the access road is unfit for the use of the land and thus it does not actually function as a passage or excessive costs are required to establish a passage;
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da53469, Aug. 19, 2003; 2012Ma1417, Feb. 14, 2013). However, where a passage is already necessary for the use of the pertinent land, the right to passage to another place may not be acknowledged solely on the ground that the passage is more convenient than the use of such passage.
(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da1088, 95Da1095 delivered on June 13, 1995, etc.). B.
With respect to the instant case, the Plaintiffs appears to be able to pass through the land owned by the Plaintiffs by using a contribution of 2 meters wide from the width of each land, other than the road opened on each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). In light of the shape, etc. of the instant land used by the Plaintiffs as a contribution, it seems somewhat convenient for the Plaintiffs to use the instant land as a passage rather than the road currently used to reach their own land. However, the evidence presented at the first instance and the first instance court alone is insufficient to view that the said land used as a contribution is inappropriate to use the land owned by the Plaintiffs, and thus, it is difficult to view that the said land as currently used as a contribution is insufficient to fully perform its function as a contribution.