1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is the owner of Gangseo-gun E, Gangwon-gun, 258 square meters and a F large of 507 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "Gonwon-gun Gon" in the indication of land). The plaintiff Eul is the owner of a detached house constructed on the ground of the above two parcels of land.

The defendant is the owner of D/W answer 412 square meters adjacent to the above F/W land owned by the plaintiff B.

The Plaintiffs, among the D land owned by the Defendant, used as a passage through which part 31.2 square meters was connected to each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the land owned by the Defendant, and the Defendant installed a steel fence with a height of 2 meters in a form surrounded by the above part on February 24, 2016, thereby preventing the Plaintiffs from entering into a public road through the above passage.

The plaintiffs have no other way through which they make a contribution without passing through the above part, and since the above way of passage is the one with less damage to the defendant, the right to passage over the surrounding land in accordance with Article 219 of the Civil Act is the plaintiffs, and the defendant bears the obligation not to remove the iron gate installed in the above part and interfere with passage by other means.

2. Determination

(a) The requirement for establishing a right of passage over the surrounding land is recognized only when there is no passage necessary for the use of the surrounding land between the ownership and the public road, so if there is already a passage necessary for the use of the surrounding land, the right of passage over the surrounding land cannot be recognized as another place solely on the ground that it is more convenient than using the passage;

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da1088 delivered on June 13, 1995, etc.). B.

In this case, it is clear that Plaintiff A’s right to passage over surrounding land belongs to the owner of the plot of land in accordance with Article 219(1) of the Civil Act, which determines each claim of Plaintiff A. Thus, Plaintiff A’s claim is without merit, as long as Plaintiff A is not the owner of E and F land.