1. The defendant,

A. Of the size of 6,067 square meters prior to Pyeongtaek-gun, Gangwon-do, the number of pages 54, 18, 19, 58, 57, 56, 55, and 54 are indicated in the annexed drawings.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 2,162 square meters prior to D, Pyeongtaek-gun, Gangwon-do (hereinafter “D”) and is a vinyl house in the present land.

B. The deceased E owned a 6,067 square meters adjacent to D land (hereinafter “C land”). However, the Defendant owned the land by inheritance as one of the deceased E’s successors.

C. The Defendant interfered with the Plaintiff’s passage on the said part by piling up earth and sand or installing vehicles on the part of the ship connecting each point of Annex C Nos. 1, 2, and 3 in sequence.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, Gap 1, 2, 6, 7 through 12 (including branch numbers, if any) or images, the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. In order to gain access to D land owned by the Plaintiff, each point of which is indicated in the separate sheet No. 54, 18, 19, 58, 57, 56, 55, and 54, among D land owned by the Defendant, among the land owned by the Plaintiff, shall go through the following two square meters: (a) of the part of the attached map No. 59, 22, 62, 61, 60, and 59; (b) of the indication No. 59, 22, 62, 61, 60, and 59; and (c) of the adjacent map No. 63, 26, 64, and 63; and (d) of the part of the adjacent map No. 44 (hereinafter “instant traffic”).

However, the defendant has interfered with the plaintiff's passage by stockpiling earth and sand on the above part.

B. Even if Defendant does not pass through the instant passage, there is an existing passage through which access to the road from D land to the right side is possible, and the use of the existing passage is less than the use of the instant passage, but more safe than the use of it.

3. Determination

A. The right of passage over surrounding land pursuant to Article 219 of the Civil Act, based on the judgment on the claim for confirmation of the right of passage over surrounding land, cannot be exercised as a result of the land surrounded by another person’s land, as well as the existing passage is already existing.