1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Article 219 of the Civil Act provides, “The right to passage over a piece of land,” as stipulated in Article 219 of the Civil Act, is particularly recognized to be used at the risk of damage to the owner of the right to passage, for the purpose of public interest, which is the use of land without a passage necessary for its use. Thus, in determining the width, location, etc. of the passage route, the method of causing less damage to the owner of the right to passage shall be considered. Determination of a certain degree of necessity should be made based on the geographical features, location, form and use relationship of the land between the public service and the public service. The degree of necessity should be

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da9202 delivered on May 31, 2002, etc.). Residence, including apartment houses, is a private space and a peaceful resting place of people, and thus, cannot be the most important place in human life, our Constitution guarantees the freedom of residence. Thus, in exercising the right of passage over surrounding land, the freedom of residence and peace and safety should not be infringed.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 62Da18661, Jun. 2, 1962; 2003Da18661, Jul. 14, 2005). Meanwhile, in order to seek confirmation of the right of passage over surrounding land, the Plaintiff seeking such confirmation must specify the place and method of passage and state it as the purport of the claim, and claim and prove the requirements under Article 219 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, in case where a specific passage part of the plaintiff's claim for confirmation does not meet the requirements under Article 219 of the Civil Code, the claim shall be dismissed in principle even if the right of passage on surrounding land is recognized in another part of the land.

(Supreme Court Decision 91Da47086, 47093 (Counterclaim Judgment; Supreme Court Decision 2004Da51757, 51764 Decided December 24, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2005Da70144 Decided June 2, 2006; Supreme Court Decision 2005Da7014 Decided January 12, 2017).