1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the area D 443 square meters in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun (hereinafter “D land”), and the Defendant Republic of Korea is the owner of the area C 284 square meters in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun (hereinafter “C land”).

From February 9, 1988, Defendant B obtained a loan of land C from Defendant Republic of Korea and used it.

(b) land C has two graves.

C. E is growing D land as dry field with the Plaintiff’s consent. For that purpose, E passes through a passage with a passage on the size of 995 square meters in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, a public road of 539 square meters, located within the boundary of Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, a Ulsan-gun, a Ulsan Saemaul Farming Association (hereinafter “existing passage”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 2, 3, 5, 17, Eul 1, Eul 1, Eul 2, 3, 5, on-site inspection results, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. There is no passage between D and public land owned by the Plaintiff, which is necessary for the use of D land, and thus, the Plaintiff has the right to passage over surrounding land under Article 219 of the Civil Act with respect to the portion of 26 square meters in the attached land indicated as “bb” (hereinafter “B”) among C land.

B. Determination 1) Since the right to passage over surrounding land is recognized only when there is no passage necessary for the use of the land between the land owned and the public road, the right to passage over surrounding land cannot be recognized solely on the ground that the passage already necessary for the use of the land is more convenient than the use of the passage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da1088, Jun. 13, 1995). In a case where an existing passage has already been used, the right to passage over surrounding land is recognized only when it is inappropriate for the use of the relevant land, and it does not actually function as a passage, or excessive expenses are required for the construction of a passage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da53469, Aug. 19, 2003; 2012Ma1417, Feb. 14, 2013).