1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the owner of not less than 617-4m2, 549.4m2, Nam-dong, Incheon (hereinafter “instant land”). The Plaintiff has a plan to construct a building, such as a senior citizen’s house, childcare center, or resident’s welfare facility, on the instant land.

However, in the vicinity of the land of this case, it is difficult to enter the land of this case, which is the land owned by the plaintiff due to apartment management managed by the council of occupants' representatives, etc. of the defendant Hanyang apartment apartment and commercial buildings managed by the defendant Hanyang apartment management body.

Therefore, the plaintiff seeks confirmation of the right of passage over surrounding land and exclusion of the interference of passage, such as the statement in the purport of the claim.

2. Determination

A. The scope of the right of passage over surrounding land is not only necessary for the person with the right of passage, but also within the scope of the place and method with which the damage of the owner of surrounding land is the lowest, and its scope must be determined in accordance with specific cases after considering the topography, locational shape and use relation of both surrounding land, neighboring geographic situation, understanding and loss of the users of neighboring land and other all other circumstances in light of social norms. In ordinary, it is recognized that the scope of passage over surrounding land is limited to the width necessary for the person to carry out daily life, such as transporting a certain amount of goods by entering a house and contributing to public transportation, and it is recognized within the scope of the use of the current land in accordance with the current method, and further it is not determined

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

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.

Supreme Court Decision 91Da9961 delivered on May 28, 1991