1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 2,582 square meters prior to the Gangseo-gun D (hereinafter “D land”), and the Defendant is the owner of the 466 square meters adjacent to the Plaintiff, which is the owner of the 00 square meters adjacent to the Gangseo-gun D (hereinafter “C land”).

B. There is an existing passage through the land owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “existing passage”) between D and D land owned by the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap 1 through 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) harvested at least three metric trucks each year on the D land owned by the Plaintiff; and (b) in light of such yield, etc., the Plaintiff need to use black land and truck in using D land.

The existing passage in the land owned by the defendant C is narrow, and the slope is very dangerous for the passage of strawer and truck.

Moreover, around March 2016, the defendant made the existing passage-based cement stairs and prevented vehicle traffic.

In addition to the existing passage, the Plaintiff sought against the Defendant the confirmation of the right to passage over surrounding land and the removal of obstacles, such as stone and cement stairs that obstruct the Plaintiff’s passage, prohibition of passage, and the Plaintiff’s expense to prohibit the Defendant from interfering with the construction of concrete packaging and construction of the instant passage.

B. Determination 1) The right of passage over surrounding land is not only necessary to a person with a traffic right, but also within the scope of the place and method where the damage of the owner of the surrounding land is the lowest, and its scope should be determined based on a specific case after considering the topography, location and use relation of both surrounding land, surrounding geographical features, location and use relation, neighboring geographical features, understanding of neighboring land users, and other relevant circumstances in light of social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 196Da11969, Nov. 29,