1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 348 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) prior to D prior to D in Si/Gu, and the Defendant is the owner of C forest land of 84 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).

B. As indicated in Appendix 2, part of the Plaintiff’s land is adjoining to E forest land, which is a meritorious deed, and the remainder is abutting on Defendant’s land, F, G factory site, and H forest, and Defendant’s land is adjoining to E forest land, which is a meritorious deed.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4 (if there are virtual numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In order for the Plaintiff to construct a building on the Plaintiff’s land, a road of not less than two meters should be adjoined to a road pursuant to Article 44(1) of the Building Act. If the Plaintiff, among the Defendant’s land, has the right of passage on the part of not less than five square meters connected to each point of attached Table 7, 8, 9, and 7 (hereinafter “instant land”), among which the Plaintiff had the Defendant’s land, a building permit may be granted by combining the Defendant’s land with a contribution of not less than two meters, and there is no passage necessary between the Plaintiff’s land and the contribution, and the Plaintiff has the right of passage over the surrounding land, and the Defendant shall not interfere with

3. Determination

A. Determination as to whether a right to passage over surrounding land has arisen is recognized only when there is no passage necessary for the use of the surrounding land between the owned land and the public road. Thus, in a case where there has already been a passage necessary for the use of the surrounding land, the right to passage over surrounding land may not be recognized as a right to passage over another place solely on the ground that the passage is more convenient than the use of the passage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da1088, 95Da1095, Jun. 13, 1995). Even if a right to passage over surrounding land has no passage necessary for the use thereof between the public road and the public road, or even if it is an existing passage, it is considered as