The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The facts of recognition are as follows. The reasons for this part are as follows: (a) the court’s “this court” in the second and seventh 7 pages of the judgment of the first instance court as “the court of the first instance”; (b) the same 9 parallels and each “Plaintiff’s land” in the same 12 parallels and below as “land owned by the Plaintiff”; and (c) add “the part on the Defendant’s land” in the same 15 parallels as “the part on the Defendant’s land”; and (d) the “the part on the Defendant’s land” in the first 15 parallels as “the land in this case” and “the Defendant’s land” in the third 1 parallels are as indicated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except where “the Defendant’s land” is deemed as “the Defendant’s land owned”, and thus, they are cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased the Plaintiff’s land with knowledge that the Plaintiff could purchase the Plaintiff’s land if the Plaintiff’s land N in Seosan City (hereinafter referred to as “real estate”) and the land in the dispute of this case and E were successively cut off in sequence.

However, the defendant, after the plaintiff purchased the land owned by the plaintiff, prevents the plaintiff from passing over the land in the dispute by installing a stop on the land in the dispute of this case.

The plaintiff, without passing through the dispute of this case, is unable to enter the public road, or excessive costs are required. Thus, the plaintiff acquired the right to pass over the surrounding land, which is capable of passing over the dispute of this case. Thus, the plaintiff sought confirmation against the defendant and sought prohibition of passing through the public road.

3. The legal doctrine related to the determination and the right to passage over surrounding land becomes final and conclusive as to which land meeting the requirements under Article 219 of the Civil Act at the time of the closing of argument (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da75300, 75317, 75324, Jun. 11, 2009). Meanwhile, the scope of the right to passage over surrounding land can be recognized within the scope of the use of the current land in accordance with the current usage of the land, and it does not be determined

Supreme Court Decision 2006No. 26 Decided October 26, 2006