All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3, the scope of the right to passage over surrounding land is not only necessary for the person with the right to passage, but also within the scope of the place and method where the damage of the owner of surrounding land is the lowest, and the scope should be determined in light of social norms, after considering the topography, locational shape and use relation of both surrounding land, surrounding geographical state, neighboring geographic state, understanding loss of the users of surrounding land, and other various circumstances, the scope should be determined in accordance with specific cases. Furthermore, it is recognized within the scope of the use of the current land in accordance with the current method of using the land,

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da33433, Nov. 29, 1996). Moreover, the right to passage over surrounding land is necessary to prepare for the construction of adjacent land in preparation for the future construction of adjacent land.

The content is not to guarantee in advance the passage of a width necessary for the entry of a heavy equipment or a large vehicle for construction works, nor to allow the owner of the surrounding land to accept it.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da961, 9978 delivered on May 28, 1991, etc.). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, acknowledged the right to passage over surrounding land only to the extent necessary for the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) to use each of the instant real estate as the site for factory or warehouse buildings in the future. However, the lower court recognized the right to passage over surrounding land only to the extent that the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Defendant”) has access to the instant road site jointly owned by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) to use each of the instant real estate as the site for factory or warehouse buildings.