1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff owns a large of 1,964 square meters (hereinafter “instant land owned by the Plaintiff”). The Defendants owned a large of 1,967 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land.

The land owned by the Plaintiff is surrounded by the land owned by G with the land of 1,278 square meters, C, and D owned by G, 1,144 square meters prior to K owned by J, and 28,06 square meters of M forest land owned by H, as indicated in the attached Form 1 drawings, and there is no passage that can pass through N, a public road, because it is surrounded with the land of 1,278 square meters and 569 square meters prior to K owned by J.

In this situation, G with H large 1,278 square meters is entitled to the Plaintiff’s right to passage over surrounding land in the ship, which is connected in order to cause the occurrence of the attached drawing Nos. 1, 278 square meters, cat, fat, and fat.

Therefore, the Defendants, the owners of the instant land adjacent to H 1,278 square meters, which the G recognized the Plaintiff as the right to passage over surrounding land, shall confirm that the Plaintiff had the right to passage over surrounding land (hereinafter “instant passage”) with respect to the parts (i) connected in sequence of the attached Form 1, (ii), caused, the head of the Gu, and the head of the Gu, and (ii) the part (hereinafter “instant passage”) connected in order to the Plaintiff, and shall not interfere with the passage.

B. The right of passage over the land surrounding the market is particularly recognized at the risk of damage to the owner of the land under way for the public interest, which is the use of land without a passage necessary for its use between the public interest and the public interest. Thus, in determining the width, location, etc. of the road, the method of causing less damage to the owner of the land under way should be considered. The degree of necessity should be determined based on the geographical features, location, and utilization of the land under ordinary social norms in a specific case.

Supreme Court Decision 2008Da75300, 75317 Decided June 11, 2009