A. Defendant F each point of the attached Form Nos. 52, 79, 54, 53, and 52, among the area of 308 square meters in the G, Incheon Strengthening-gun G.

A. On September 9, 2016, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff through a voluntary auction case by the Incheon District Court Q.

B. Defendant F is the owner of the land of 308 square meters prior to G G in Incheon, Defendant E is the 6645 square meters of H forest, Defendant B is the owner of the land of 998 square meters of forest land, J forest, 1019 square meters of J forest, and 940 square meters of K forest. Defendant C and Defendant D are the co-owners of the land of 2198 square meters of forest of the above L forest.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3 (including a provisional number, but excluding Gap's 3-6), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As to the right to passage over surrounding land and the right to passage over surrounding land under Article 219 of the Civil Act, in a case where there is no passage between a certain land and a public road, the right to passage over surrounding land under Article 219 of the Civil Act can be acknowledged as a case where the owner of the surrounding land is unable to enter the public road without passing over or passing through the surrounding land. Since the right to passage over surrounding land limits the use of surrounding land for the use of land without a passage to the public road, the scope of the right to passage over surrounding land is necessary not only to the person who has the right to passage over the land but also to the extent of the place and method where the damage to the owner of surrounding land is the lowest, and the scope of the right to passage over surrounding land should be determined according to a specific case after considering the topography, location, shape and use relation of surrounding land, understanding of the users of surrounding land, and all other circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da43580, Sep. 29, 1995).