주위토지통행권 등
1. The request is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff asserted as follows: (a) the Plaintiff owned the F public rental housing (A1 block) and owned B, C, and D land on March 18, 2008, as indicated in the attached drawing, 118 square meters (the land in this case), B,18 square meters, C, and C, 268 square meters, and D, and 1323 square meters prior to D. However, the Defendant acquired the land for public use on March 18, 2008.
As a result, the instant land became a blind land and became impossible to enter the G to the Si-Ying City, which was a contribution to the Defendant’s land without passing through the land.
Since the Plaintiff’s dry field farmer was a dry field farming shed from the land of this case to the land of this case, it should be recognized as having a right of passage over surrounding land not less than 3 meters in width for access to agricultural machinery, such as the purport of the claim
2. Determination
A. The legal doctrine is particularly recognized to have a right of passage over surrounding land under Article 219 of the Civil Act at the risk of causing damage to the owner of the right of passage for the public interest, which is the use of land without a passage required for a use between the public interest and the public interest. As such, in determining the width or location of the passage route, the method of causing less damage to the owner of the right of passage shall be considered. Determination of a certain degree of necessity should be based on the geographical and locational form of the land between the parties in accordance with social norms, neighboring geographical and locational form and use relationship, neighboring geographical state, understanding of the users of the
B. (Supreme Court Decision 2003Da18661 Decided July 14, 2005, etc.).
In this case, the instant land, which is recognized as a right to passage over surrounding land, should be recognized through the surrounding land owned by the Defendant for the sake of having access to agricultural machinery, such as dry field farmers, 3, and D, because there is no dispute as to the fact that there is no alternative unlike the shortest distance from passing over the land owned by the Defendant, or because it is recognized as a result of on-site inspection, and thus, the right to passage over surrounding land should be recognized through the surrounding land owned by the Defendant for the sake of the instant land. 2) The Plaintiff within the scope of the right to passage over surrounding land is 3 meters wide for the purpose of having access to agricultural machinery, such as dry field farmers.