The case holding that the request for prohibition of passage by the owner of land used for the passage to and from which residents enter a public road is in violation of the good faith principle.

The case holding that the request for prohibition of passage by the owner of land used as a passage to and from the public road by the residents is against the good faith principle.

Article 2 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Kim Dong-dong et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

Defendant 1 and 3 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Jeonju District Court Decision 92Na896 delivered on April 29, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the facts established by the court below, the plaintiff used the above land as part of the non-party 2's residential area's non-party 2's previous residential area's non-party 2's non-party 2's land use and non-party 3's non-party 2's land use and non-party 4's land use and non-party 2's use of the above land as part of the non-party 2's land's non-party 9's land use and non-party 3's land use and non-party 4's land use and non-party 7's land use and non-party 4's land use and non-party 7's land use and non-party 2's land use and non-party 3's land use and non-party 4's land use and non-party 2's land use and non-party 2's land use as part of the non-party 3's land use and non-party 3's land use.

The issue is that the defendants may pass the land of this case directly through public service without passing through the land of this case. The land of this case is provided only to the defendants, the defendants, the defendants' acquisition intervenor, and the defendants' management guests. Thus, prohibiting passage through the land of this case and using a door that can directly pass through public service cannot be deemed as violating the principle of good faith, and this cannot be said to inflict any pain or damage on the defendants, and it cannot be said that there is no interest on the plaintiff in the fact that the land of this case is concentrated in general housing, and the land of this case should be maintained in peace. However, as alleged by the plaintiff, it cannot be said that the plaintiff can pass through public service directly through public service with the entrance owned by the defendants, so it cannot be said that there is no benefit to pass the land of this case through public notice, and therefore, it cannot be said that there is no pain or damage to the defendants, and it is difficult to accept the passage of the land of this case to the extent that the plaintiff could not be able to reach due to passing through the land of this case.

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)