[1] Whether a person whose freedom of passage is infringed on a road offered for public passage may bring an action against the obstruction of passage in order to prevent such obstruction in the future (affirmative in principle)

[2] In a case where Party A, etc., installed a land management station on the road, installed an open-to-door shuttler, confirmed motor vehicle drivers, etc., and allowed Party B, etc. to open and pass through the shuttler, the case affirming the judgment below holding that Party B, etc., can seek a prohibition of interference with traffic from Party B, etc.

[1] Unless there exist special circumstances such as infringement of the right of others with respect to a road, a person who intends to pass through a road offered to the general public shall be deemed to be a tort under the Civil Act if a third party infringes on the freedom of passage of a specific person by causing interference with daily life by causing interference with the passage of a road only to the extent necessary for daily life, barring special circumstances such as infringement on the right of others with respect to the road, etc.

[2] The case affirming the judgment below holding that Gap's act of obstructing passage to Eul et al. constitutes an infringement on Eul et al.'s freedom of passage, and thus Eul et al. can seek a prohibition of obstruction of passage to roads, in case where Gap's act of obstructing passage to Eul et al. was committed on the roads where the land management office was constructed on the roads provided for the passage of the general public, installed the opening-to-door block blockr, and let automobile drivers pass by opening the blockingr after confirming the passage route and visiting purpose, etc.

[1] Article 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Appointed Party) 1

Plaintiff 2 and eight others

Gu Mycho Village Residents' Self-Governing Council (Attorney Park Young-chul, Counsel for defendant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na80127 decided July 2, 2010

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Unless there exist special circumstances such as infringement of the rights, etc. of others with respect to a road, a person who intends to pass through a road offered for the general public shall be deemed to be a tort under the Civil Act if a third party infringes on the freedom of passage of a specific person by the same method as other persons within the scope necessary for daily life, such as where he/she is permitted to pass through the road, and a third party is allowed only a specific person to interfere with the passage of the road, thereby hindering his/her daily life, and the infringing person shall be deemed to be able to file a lawsuit for the prohibition of interference with passage in order

Based on the evidence of employment, the lower court: (a) part of the annexed drawing indication (A) of the lower judgment among the land size of 4801 square meters in Gangnam-dong, Seoul; (b) provided for the passage of the general public, such as the plaintiffs residing in the old YYeng Village or the Masan mountain, etc., as part of the road to reach the two sides in the old Yeng-dong Village; (c) on June 9, 2008, the Defendant constructed the land management office on the instant road and installed the opening door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door, etc.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the legal principle as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, all appeals by the Defendant are dismissed, and the 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.

[Separate] List of Selections: Omitted

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)