Plaintiff (Law Firm Insan, Attorneys Jeon Woo-ok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Lee Tae-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

September 4, 2008

Busan District Court Decision 2006Gadan43196, 2006Gadan49101 (Merger), 2007Gadan325 (Merger) Decided December 13, 2007

1. The appeal by the defendant (appointed party) is dismissed;

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant (Appointed Party).

1. Purport of claim

The Plaintiff confirms that the Plaintiff has a right to passage over surrounding land over the size of 25.08 square meters in the ship that connects each point of 3, 4, 11, 12, and 3 of the annexed drawing among Kimpo-si (Dong-si, lot number, 2 omitted). The Defendant (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Defendant”) and the designated parties shall not remove 3 meters from each Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and shall not commit any act interfering with the Plaintiff’s passage over the aforementioned part of the land.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is that “the result of the on-site inspection by this Court” to be “the result of each on-site inspection by the court of first instance and the party of the first instance” is “the result of each on-site inspection by each on-site inspection by the court of first instance and the party of the first instance,” and that, except that the fifth fifth part is the same as the following, this Court’s reasoning is cited pursuant to the main text of Article 420 of the

2. Paragraph 2-b;

B. Meanwhile, comprehensively taking account of the results of the Nonparty’s survey and appraisal by the Nonparty’s appraiser on the evidence adopted earlier, it is possible to think that each of the land in question among the land in question, “B” out of the land in question, “B” out of the land in question, and “D” out of the land in Kimpo-si (dong No. 3 omitted), and the land in question out of the land in question, “B” out of the same 19-11.

However, in the case of the above portion of the land, 199 square meters, the Plaintiff used the above portion of “B” and its neighboring land for a long time after construction of 199 square meters, and the Defendant and the designated parties have also passed through the land in this case, and they had recently obstructed the Plaintiff’s passage by constructing 3rd walls and steel pipe fences connecting 3 and 4 square meters to the above portion of the land. In light of the entire site shape and area of the above portion of the land, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to use the above portion of the land in the same way as that of the Plaintiff’s relocation without any specific cost, and considering that the above portion of the land was installed within 30-7 square meters, it is difficult for the Defendant and the designated parties to use the above portion of the land as the road in this case’s shape and area, and thus, it is considerably small enough for the Plaintiff to use it as the road in this case’s shape and area to prevent the use of the land by the Defendant and the designated parties.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the ground of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be just and it shall be dismissed on the ground that the defendant's appeal is without merit.

[Attachment List of Appointeds and Appraisaldones]

Judges Choi Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)