2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

The defendant, for the construction of the water supply, sewage and sewage, communications, gas pipes, and electric cable facilities, which the plaintiff intends to construct on the ground of the 41m square meters of the road in Sungnam-si ( Address 2 omitted), shall express his/her intention of approval for the use of the part on the ship, which connects each point of which is 64m of the attached map No. 11, No. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, and 11, among the above land, in sequence.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of a square registry of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of which the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area

B. On July 30, 2014, the Plaintiff newly constructed a building on the land ( Address 1 omitted) and submitted an application for the implementation of the instant water supply works (hereinafter “instant water supply works”) to implement the said building. However, from the Sungnam city to implement the instant water supply works, the Plaintiff received a reply from the landowner on August 5, 2014 to the effect that, in order to implement the instant water supply works, the instant road should pass through the instant road and, in the event that water pipes, etc. are installed on another’s land, a written consent for land use should be attached to the Plaintiff’s land use should be attached pursuant to Article 6(4) of the Water Supply Ordinance and Article 2(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the said Ordinance.

C. Notwithstanding the Defendant’s response made on August 5, 2014, the Plaintiff failed to submit a written consent to the use of the instant road due to failure to obtain the Defendant’s consent on the use of the instant road. Ultimately, on August 12, 2014, Sungnam-si returned the Plaintiff’s application for water supply construction of this case and notified the Plaintiff of its return around that time. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute, and the entries and images of evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 9, 11, 12, and 14, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the construction of the instant facilities cannot be performed without passing through the instant road. Even if it is possible to carry out the construction of the instant facilities through other land than the instant road, the Plaintiff has the right to carry out the construction of the instant facilities on the instant road pursuant to Article 218 of the Civil Act, and the Defendant is obliged to express his/her consent to use the instant road.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the construction of the facility of this case may not be carried out even if the non-party 1, who is the defendant's attached, did not pass through the road of this case through the road of this case through the road (road address 9 omitted), the road (road address 6 omitted), the land owned by the non-party 2 (road address 4 omitted), the land (road address 3 omitted), and the land (road address 3 omitted), etc. among the construction of this case, it is possible to use the land distribution equipment owned by the non-party 2. Thus, it cannot be said that the execution of the construction of the facility of this case through the road of this case is the small place and method of choosing the least damage.

B. Determination

1) A landowner may install necessary water supply pipes, minority pipes, gas pipes, electric wires, etc. without passing through another person’s land, or require excessive costs. However, even in the case of the above facilities, the method and place should be selected as the place and method with the lowest amount of damage to the other person’s land (Article 218(1) of the Civil Act). Whether the place and method with the lowest amount of damage was selected should be determined based on the topographical, location and utilization relation of both parties’ land, neighboring geographical features, surrounding geographical features and conditions, and other relevant circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da18661, Jul. 14, 2005, etc.).

2) In light of the following facts and circumstances as a result of the examination in the instant case: (a) evidence Nos. 8, 13, and 14; (b) evidence Nos. 2 and 7; (c) evidence Nos. 11-2 and 11-2; and (d) on-site inspection conducted by the court of first instance; (b) the survey and appraisal conducted by Nonparty 3 of the court of first instance; (c) Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, the Korea Electric Power Corporation, the Korea Gas Corporation, the Korea Electric Power Corporation, and the Korea Gas Safety Corporation; and (d) the fact-finding conducted by the court of first instance as a result of the fact-finding conducted by the court of first instance; and (c) the Korea Electric Power Corporation and the Korea Electric Power Corporation in the instant case, unless the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant building, passes the instant

A) As shown in the attached Form 2, a fence is installed on the boundary of the land ( Address 7 omitted), which is the site of the instant building, at the end of the north ( Address 1 omitted) and ( Address 8 omitted). On the land immediately adjacent ( Address 5 omitted), a golf practice range is installed on the land, and the width of the land ( Address 5 omitted) is not less than 50.

B) The width of the instant road, which is a golf range entry, is approximately 1.3 meters from the beginning point of the road, approximately 8.4 meters from the land of the branch office, and approximately 8.2 meters from the land of the branch office ( Address 9 omitted), and the distance from the ( Address 4 omitted) road to the ( Address 9 omitted) land is about 27.2. Therefore, among the instant roads, the part necessary for the installation of the instant facilities, such as the attached Form 1 drawing, which is equivalent to 2 meters wide from the boundary of the land of the instant road (attached Form 1 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, and 11 in sequence, it is possible to enter the instant road to enter the golf range.

C) On the boundary of the land and the road of this case, a fence is installed on the boundary of the land and the road of this case, and ( Address 6 omitted) the land is used as the site and the parking lot of the building on the ground, and the area corresponding to the portion to be used in this case is 64

D) The construction period required for the instant installation works and the size necessary for the construction are as follows:

1.2m in depth 1.2m 1.2m in width 1.1m 2m in width 1m 1m 2m in size 1.2m 1m in size 1m 1m 1m 2m in size 1m 7m per seven days (ju 1) for an expected period of electrical communication for sewage pipes included in

Note 1) 10 days

E) The method of executing the instant facility construction en bloc is only the method of connecting the facilities laid underground on the road (road address 9 omitted). There is no method of connecting the instant building via only the land (road address 9 omitted), which is the Plaintiff-owned (road address 9 omitted), and the land (road address 3 omitted), and should pass through the instant road or the instant land (road 6 omitted). However, among them, among them, the cost of implementing the instant facility construction via the instant road is less required, and the distance is close.

F) In the case of electrical construction, the method of reaching the instant building via the road ( Address 9 omitted) and the method of using power distribution facilities on the land via the road ( Address 6 omitted), but it is deemed that the method of passing through the instant road using the facilities installed on the road ( Address 9 omitted) together with other facilities would be the most efficient. Furthermore, under the circumstance that construction of the instant road is to be carried out on the road except for electrical construction, even if construction is to be carried out on the instant road, it cannot be deemed that the damage to the Defendant would be caused. Rather, the disadvantage that the Defendant additionally received through the instant facility construction, including electrical construction, is deemed to be de facto nonexistent, and the separate installation of electrical construction and the remaining facility is to increase social costs only.

G) Meanwhile, the land is used as the site and parking lot of the building on the ground, and it is anticipated that the execution of the instant facility construction would inflict significant damage on the land. On the other hand, the instant road is a road with a width of 8.2 to 11.3 meters, which is within 2 meters and a construction period of 5 to 10 days, even if the instant facility construction is implemented, it is anticipated that there would be no big hindrance to the road use.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff has the right to use the instant facilities among the instant roads. Furthermore, considering the circumstances requiring the Plaintiff to submit to the Plaintiff a written consent to use the instant roads under the premise for the execution of the instant water supply works, the Defendant is obliged to express his/her consent to use the instant roads among the instant roads in order to guarantee the Plaintiff’s exercise of the said right to use.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserts that the provision on the right to use the instant road, such as water supply under Article 218 of the Civil Act, does not purport to impose an obligation not to impose an obligation on the owner of another land, but to express his/her consent to use the land. Since the Defendant’s written consent to use the land, which was demanded under the premise for the execution of water supply works, includes an excessive infringement on the Defendant’s property right, the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking the consent to use the instant road against the Defendant is unreasonable.

On the other hand, Article 218 of the Civil Act provides that the ownership is restricted to regulate the use of adjoining real estate, such as the water essential for urban life. The right to use the water, etc. on the land owned by the landowner under Article 218 of the Civil Act shall include not only the right to direct facilities, but also the land use for facilities and the consent thereto. The part necessary for the installation of the instant facilities is limited to the part of the instant road, which is part of the instant road, so it cannot be deemed impossible to enter into the golf range, which is the purpose of the instant road. The written consent of the land use for the water supply construction (the attached document No. 11) provides that the land purchaser shall transfer this written consent at the time of the change to the land purchase and sale, the land purchaser shall have succeeded to all the above written consent, and the land purchaser shall be subject to prior consultation, and the land purchaser shall bear the expenses for the use of the instant water supply facilities, such as the right to use the water supply facilities after changing the form and quality of the said land, and it cannot be seen that it does not interfere with the use of the instant water supply facilities.

B. In addition, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant should impose the obligation to consent to the use of land on the instant road only for the period recognized as appropriate for the execution of the instant facility construction. However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff is seeking to consent to the use of land on the instant road for the purpose of the construction of the instant facility, and its purpose is specified. The part necessary for the construction of the instant facility is limited to the part of the instant road, which is part of the instant road, and the right to use the instant facility, such as water under Article 218 of the Civil Act, is recognized as a restriction provision on ownership based on close relation for the purpose of rationally coordinating the ownership and use relationship of adjoining real estate, so the Defendant’s duty to consent to the use of land can not be easily changed without any special circumstance. If the Defendant’s consent to the use of land on the instant road for the construction of the instant facility is limited to the period of consent to the instant road for the construction of the instant facility without any external reasons, such as whether the Plaintiff’s request is rejected, construction circumstances, and the Defendant’s claim for change of land usage can not be justified due to the above.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking to the plaintiff to express his/her consent to the use of this case among the roads of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Gyeong-Gyeong (Presiding Judge)

1) The Korea Electric Power Corporation sent that the said construction period includes ten days of the actual construction period and the occupancy and permission period related to excavation (the result of inquiry into the Korea Electric Power Corporation of the first and the appellate court).