In cases where a person who has a traffic right due to the commercial relationship has exclusive possession of the traffic right, whether the owner of the traffic right is entitled to request the delivery thereof.

A person who has a right of passage over another person's land due to a close relationship may use the land within the scope of the right of passage (referring to the place and method in which the damage to the land is low), and the landowner has a duty to authorize it, but in this case, the possession of the owner of the land is not excluded. Thus, if the person who has the right of passage occupies the land exclusively without restricting the passage through the land, the owner of the right of passage may request the person having the right of passage to deliver it.

Article 219 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

[Defendant-Appellant] Park Yong-dae et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellee and one other, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Defendant-Appellant Park Jong-hwan, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Busan District Court Decision 92Na951 delivered on April 15, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

1. The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to the First Ground:

A person who has a right of passage over another person's land due to a close relationship may use the land within the scope of the right of passage (referring to a place and method which does not cause damage to the land), and the landowner shall be bound to accept it. However, since the possession of the owner of the right of passage is not excluded, if the person with the right of passage occupies it exclusively without passing through the road, the owner of the right of passage may request the person with the right of passage to transfer it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 79Da1460, Apr. 8, 1980; 76Da2823, Apr. 26, 197).

Therefore, the court below's decision that the removal of this case based on ownership and the request for extradition cannot be denied solely on the grounds of the theory that the defendant has the right to passage over surrounding land against the land (the part which is used as access by piling up stairs) in the (h) part of the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no violation

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

With respect to the second ground:

If there are special circumstances, such as the parties’ intent to purchase land and transaction with intent to purchase land according to the current situation, the scope of ownership may be determined by the boundary rather than the boundary on the public cadastral book. However, as it is difficult to recognize the existence of such special circumstances in this case, the lower court’s determination that recognized the scope of ownership by the boundary on the public cadastral book should be correct.

The Supreme Court's ruling that the theory of lawsuit is reasonable for this case, unlike this case, cannot be viewed as the case.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

With respect to the third point:

The court below rejected the defendant's claim for the acquisition of prescription for the above part of the land on the ground that the part (g) (h) of the judgment of the court below was publicly announced at the time when the defendant purchased the building and the site in the judgment of the non-party, and that all the above parts of the land were excluded from the object of sale on the premise that the above part of the land was owned by others, and that it cannot be recognized that they occupied the above part of the land or have occupied it by the intention of ownership, and in light of the records, the above fact-finding and the judgment of the court below are just, and there

There is no reason for this issue.

2. The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

Examining the evidence of cooking and selected by the court below in light of the records, it is just and acceptable that the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's possession of (f) (i) part of the judgment of the court below is the possession of the building site, and recognized the defendant's prescriptive acquisition for this, and there is no error of law such as violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing, as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

3. Therefore, both appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)