The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim) indicated in attached Form 18, 24, 23, 22, 15, 21, 20, 19, and 18, among the land size of 747 square meters in Jeonju-gun, Jeonbuk-gun, Seoul.

The Plaintiff established the right to passage over the land surrounding the claim for main lawsuit is the owner of the area of 311 square meters in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Jeonbuk-gun (No. 1-1-2), and the Defendant is the owner of the area of 747 square meters in Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

(A) No. 1-2) However, in order to go to the nearest E road because the Plaintiff’s land is not a passage between the public service and the public service, the Defendant’s land should not be allowed to pass.

Therefore, the plaintiff has the right to pass over the defendant's land at the place where the defendant suffered losses.

Furthermore, the issue of whether the Plaintiff currently uses the Plaintiff’s land does not affect the recognition of the right to passage over surrounding land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1156, Feb. 9, 198). With respect to the specific scope of the right to passage over surrounding land, the Plaintiff asserts that the right to passage over surrounding land should be recognized with respect to the portion (c) 15 square meters of surrounding land connected in sequence 3, 4, 5, 6, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 24, 1.8 square meters of surrounding land, which is a road with a width of 3 meters for access to agricultural machinery, etc., and the Defendant asserts that the right to passage over surrounding land should be recognized with respect to the portion (d) 15 square meters of surrounding land connected in sequence 18,24, 23, 22, 15, 21, 20, 19, and 18.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s land is used only for the purpose of one household or small number of persons residing in the housing site, and currently large agricultural machinery and vehicles are stored or parked in the surrounding vacant lots, it seems that there is no problem of use even if they are stored or parked, and even if it is convenient to allow access to the vehicle to front the house to transport goods, it is reasonable to view that the land used for residential purpose is not necessary until the passage for access to the large agricultural machinery and vehicles, etc., in light of the fact that it seems that the said situation would not be more than twice in one year.

Supreme Court Decision 2005Da70144 Decided June 2, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 2005Da70144 Decided October 21, 1994