A. The Plaintiffs are co-owners of F 2810 square meters, G 265 square meters, and H 492 square meters prior to H (hereinafter “Plaintiffs’ land”), and the Defendant is the owner of 684 square meters prior to E in 1,000 square meters prior to E (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The land owned by the Plaintiffs is surrounded by the instant land and other land owned by others, and it is impossible to access to the public road if they do not pass through the land owned by others. The Plaintiffs have access to the land of this case abutting on the south side of the G land among the land owned by the Plaintiffs and the land of this case, which is owned by the Defendant’s father, through a lawsuit with a contribution between the land of this case and the land of this case, which

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On the other hand, the right to passage over surrounding land under Article 219 of the Civil Act limits the use of the surrounding land for the purpose of using the land without a passage necessary for its use between the public road and the public road. As such, the scope of the right to passage is necessary for the owner of the right to passage as well as within the scope of the place and method with which the damage to the owner of the surrounding land is the lowest possible extent. Ultimately, the scope should be determined according to a specific case after taking into account the topography, locational shape and utilization relation of the surrounding land, neighboring geographic situation, understanding and loss of the users of the surrounding land, and

In this case, according to the above recognition facts, since the land owned by the plaintiffs falls under the so-called blind land, it is inevitable to use the surrounding land in order to enter the public road, so the right to passage over surrounding land is recognized.

Furthermore, regarding the scope of the right to passage over surrounding land recognized by the plaintiffs, the evidence mentioned above and the evidence.