1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 22, 1981, the Plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on December 2, 1965 with respect to the 2,446 square meters of Gangseo-si C (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”). The Defendant owns and manages the Defendant’s land, which is a state forest adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land.

B. The Plaintiff’s land is a method of passing through the Defendant’s land and the passage opened by Nonparty D, to enter a public road as a franchisor and passing through the franchisor, in sequence, through which the Plaintiff’s land is adjacent to the front of the Plaintiff’s land.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant designated and managed the Defendant’s land as a permanent state forest pursuant to the State Forest Administration and Management Act.

Plaintiff

Land is classified as a field, but it is not cultivated for a long time, and it is similar to the surrounding forest as a large tree and miscellaneous tree because it is not cultivated for a long time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1 and images, the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s alleged land is a blind spot and cannot be a contribution without passing through the Defendant’s land. The land category of the Plaintiff’s land is the answer and present situation, and it is necessary for the Plaintiff to pass agricultural machinery, etc. to cultivate crops. As such, the Plaintiff has a right to pass passage over the part of the Defendant’s land at a range of 2 meters wide, and the Defendant shall not obstruct the Plaintiff’s passage.

B. The right to passage over surrounding land, as stipulated in Article 219 of the Civil Act, is limited to the use of surrounding land for the use of land without a passage necessary for its use, so the scope of the right to passage is not only necessary for the person with the right to passage but also within the scope of the place and method where the damage of the owner of surrounding land is the lowest, and the scope of the right to passage