The case holding that the claim for tolls against the person holding passage over surrounding land who has been driving free of charge is not permitted because it violates the good faith principle.

In a case where it is reasonable to deem that a landowner permitted the provision of a passage without compensation for the owner of the surrounding land and purchased it in such a state, claiming tolls against the owner of the surrounding site who has continuously passed the passage part without compensation since the purchase of the surrounding site is in violation of the good faith principle to claim tolls on the ground that the owner of the surrounding site is the owner of the passage only when he/she is the owner of the passage.

Articles 2 and 219 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

Defendant-Appellant (Law Firm Han-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 90Na12455 delivered on September 20, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the above part of the non-party 1 purchased the above non-party 2's ownership transfer registration on the non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's own land and the non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1'

In light of the records, the court below's fact-finding and its determination that the plaintiffs' claim of this case violated the principle of good faith is just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the surrounding land traffic right and the principle of good faith.

As pointed out in the theory of lawsuit that Article 220 of the Civil Act on the right to passage over free of charge does not apply to a specific successor of the land where the right to passage over free of charge is located. However, according to the above theory of the court below, the court below's decision in this case is clear that Article 219 of the Civil Act, which is the general principle for the right to passage over surrounding land, is not applied to the above provision between the plaintiffs, who are specific successors of the above passage and the plaintiffs. It is

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)