주위토지통행권 확인
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 15, 2014 with respect to the 3,901 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) before Jeju-si Dri (hereinafter “Dri”) E prior to 3,901 square meters (hereinafter “Dri”).
B. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 29, 2014 with respect to C forest land 8,146 square meters in the vicinity of the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).
[In the absence of any dispute, Gap evidence 1-2]
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff has a right to pass along the part of 10 square meters in the ship (hereinafter “the part of the instant land”) which connects each point of the attached Form 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 31, 32, 112, 113, and 14 among the Defendant’s land in order to pass through a public road.
3. Determination
A. The right of passage over surrounding land, in a case where there is no passage necessary for the use of the land between the public road and the public road, is particularly acknowledged at the risk of damage to the owner of the land under way. As such, the width, location, and method of passage should be the least damage to the owner of the land under way. In a specific case, the determination should be made in accordance with social norms by taking into account the geographical and locational shape of the land under way, the surrounding geographical state, the surrounding geographical state, the interest of the user of the land
(Supreme Court Decision 2016Da39422 Decided January 12, 2017). The right to passage over surrounding land is recognized not only where a certain land cannot be controlled by a public road surrounded by another person’s land, but also where an existing passage has already been determined but it does not actually function as a passage because it does not fit the use of the land (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da53469, Aug. 19, 2003). However, if a passage is already necessary for the use of the land, the right to passage over surrounding land cannot be recognized solely on the ground that it is more convenient than the use of the passage.
Supreme Court Decision 95Da1088 delivered on June 13, 1995