All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Since the right to passage over the surrounding land is recognized only when there is no passage necessary for the use of the surrounding land between the land owned and the public road, the right to passage over the surrounding land cannot be recognized solely on the ground that there is a passage necessary for the use of the surrounding land, if there is already a passage more convenient than

(Supreme Court Decision 95Da1088 delivered on June 13, 1995). On the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that, without the passage of the instant passage owned by the Defendant, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiffs are unable to access their respective land to a public road, or excessive costs are incurred, and thus, dismissed all the Plaintiffs’ claim for confirmation of their right to passage over surrounding land, claim for removal of fence, and claim for prohibition of interference with passage.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the right to passage over surrounding land and abuse of rights, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or omitting judgment.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.