(a) Scope of application of traffic rights to surrounding land by partial transfer;

B. Whether the transferor under paragraph (a) is unable to acquire the right of passage over the surrounding land without compensation if the transferor fails to allow the passage over the surrounding land without compensation and the owner of the surrounding land is unable to acquire the right of passage over the surrounding land if part of the other land is used as a passage.

C. Criteria for determining the scope of right to passage over surrounding land

(a) Where a part of the land owned by the same person is assigned and cannot be contributed to the public, the right to passage over the surrounding land for the sake of the plot of land shall only be granted to the previous land owned by the transferor prior to the partial transfer, and the right to passage over the surrounding land shall not be granted to the land owned by another person, and the right to passage over the surrounding land for the sake of the free transfer shall also include not only the case where a part of the land is transferred, but also the case where a part of

B. The transferor's failure to allow the owner of the adjoining land to pass the surrounding land without compensation, such as "A" and the owner of the surrounding land to pay the user fee for a certain period without the owner of the surrounding land, and even if the transferor used it as a passage leading to a contribution to a part of another land, it cannot be said that the owner of the surrounding land cannot acquire the right to pass the surrounding land without compensation under Article 220 of the Civil Act.

C. Since the right to passage over surrounding land is a right to restrict the exclusive right to use the surrounding land by its owner, it is intended to adjust the understanding among the neighboring land owners, the place and method should be selected to the extent that does not impede passage, to the extent that the least damage to the surrounding land owners is not caused, the location and scope of passage can not be uniformly determined, and the land category of the surrounding land and the necessity for its use varies depending on the specific circumstances.

(b)Article 220(c) of the Civil Code;

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Da12670, 12687 decided Jul. 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 2218), 91Da37324 decided Apr. 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 1705) (Gong1992, 1705), 93Da22906 decided Dec. 14, 1993 (Gong1994, 361). (C) Supreme Court Decision 92Da30528 Decided Dec. 22, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 92Da30528 (Gong193, 571)

Busan Electronic Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Anam Industrial Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

Suwon District Court Decision 94Na1903, 94Na1910 (Counterclaim) delivered on July 27, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to the first and second points

In a case where a part of the land owned by the same person becomes unusable due to the transfer of the land, the right to passage over the surrounding land for the purpose of the land was created only for the previous land owned by the transferor prior to the partial transfer, and it is not recognized for the land owned by another person, and the right to passage over the surrounding land without compensation is partially transferred not only for the transfer of a part of the land but also for the transfer of a part of the land owned by the same person (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da22906 delivered on December 14, 1993).

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is justified.

In addition, even if the transferor did not permit the passage of the surrounding land to the owner of the land involved without permission, the owner of the surrounding land should pay the user fee for a certain period without permission, and the owner of the surrounding land cannot acquire the right to passage over the surrounding land without compensation under Article 220 of the Civil Act, since the owner of the surrounding land cannot obtain the right to passage over the surrounding land without compensation, even if he used part of the surrounding land as a passage to the surrounding land, such as the theory of lawsuit, even if the owner of the surrounding land used it as a passage to the surrounding land of this case, it cannot be said that the owner of the surrounding land of this case cannot acquire the right to passage over the surrounding land without compensation.

Therefore, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the right to passage over surrounding land free of charge due to a partial transfer of land under Article 220 (2) of the Civil Code, as in the theory of lawsuit. There is no ground for appeal.

On the third ground for appeal

Since the right to passage over the surrounding land is a right to restrict the exclusive right to use the surrounding land of the owner of the neighboring land and to adjust the understanding among the neighboring land owners, the location and scope of passage shall not be uniformly determined, and the location and scope of passage vary depending on specific circumstances, such as the land category of the surrounding land and the necessity for its use, etc. Accordingly, considering the records of this case, the decision of the court below that the decision of the court below is reasonable to use the section 170 square meters per the adjacent land section in the second drawing as the passage from the surrounding land to the public road, and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the scope of the right to passage over the surrounding land, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no ground for appeal.

On the fourth ground

According to the court below's decision, since the plaintiff is under construction after obtaining permission for the establishment of an electronic component manufacturing factory from the head of Sungsung-gun on November 16, 1993 on the land of this case, the plaintiff can pass through the surrounding land of this case within the scope of considering such utilization situation of the land of this case, and even if the land of this case is located within a development-restricted area under the Urban Planning Act, it cannot be viewed that the surrounding land of this case cannot pass through the surrounding land of this case. The court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the restriction on the exercise of private rights in the development-restricted area such as the theory of lawsuit, and there

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)