1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff is the owner of 3,553 square meters adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s land”), and the Defendant is the owner of 3,553 square meters adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”). There is no dispute between the parties.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and its judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion must pass along the E-road, a contribution to cultivating the Plaintiff’s land, to a local government. For this purpose, the Defendant’s land should be used.

In addition, the passage of the shortest distance, which minimizess the defendant's damage, is required to pass four meters in width, and the passage of the shortest distance, among the defendant's land, about 120 square meters in the ship connecting each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 1 among the defendant's land, is reasonable.

Therefore, the defendant confirms that the plaintiff has the right to passage over the above part of the land, and does not interfere with the construction of the road for passage over the part of the plaintiff.

(b) If a piece of land has no access to a public road, which is necessary for the use of the land, without passing over the surrounding land, and the owner of the land cannot reach the public road, or the cost to reach the pubic road is excessive, he may pass over the surrounding land to the public road, and if necessary he may construct a path;

(Article 219(1) main text of the Civil Act). The right to passage over surrounding land is recognized in a case where it is impossible to pass over surrounding land or enter a public road without passing through the surrounding land or building a passage, or where it is recognized that it is inappropriate to use the surrounding land and fails to function as a passage in fact because it is inappropriate to do so even if there is a passage.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da47118, Mar. 10, 1998). In this case, there is no passage necessary for the use of the Plaintiff’s land between the Plaintiff’s land and the public service thereof.

Even if there is a passage or passage, it is not sufficient to function as a passage because it is inappropriate to use the land of the plaintiff.