If a piece of land has been divided and thus it is impossible to exercise overall control over public service, the passage for the land shall be limited to the land belonging to the former piece of land, and the passage for the land belonging to another person, which is not caused by the right of passage for the land belonging to another person.

If one parcel of land is divided and thus it is impossible to exercise overall control over public service, the passage for the land shall be limited to the land which belongs to the former one, and the passage for the land which belongs to another person shall not be caused by the right of passage for the land which belongs to another person.

Article 220 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 69Na237 delivered on February 7, 1970, Seoul High Court Decision 69Na237 delivered on February 7, 1970

We reverse the original judgment.

The case shall be remanded to Seoul Civil District Court Panel Division.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

The right of passage for surrounding land shall be recognized only in the absence of a passage necessary for the use of the land between a piece of land and a public road. Even if a piece of land has a different land category and a piece of land due to subdivision or division, the passage for the land can be limited to the land belonging to the previous piece of land, and even if the land cannot be controlled for the public road due to the subdivision or division, the passage for the land can be limited to the land belonging to the previous piece of land, and it cannot be said that the land owned by one person has a passage to a part of the land, and it cannot be said that there is a right to pass over the land owned by another person in the surrounding area without passing through the other part of the land, but according to the reasoning of the original judgment, the lower court acknowledged that the first three-fourths and four-fourths of the above land were owned by the plaintiff, and there is no passage to the surrounding land from the previous piece of land to the original part. In order to remove the plaintiff's right of passage for the above part, the lower court rejected the above claim against the defendant's right of passage from the above forest and land.

Therefore, the defendant asserted that the above ( Address 2 omitted) forest and site 39 square meters are owned by the plaintiff and this site is divided into the above forest and field, and the court below did not complete a deliberation as to whether the above site was divided into divided land in the above ( Address 2 omitted) forest and field and whether there was a passage to pass through when divided, or did not make a decision thereon or erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the surrounding right of passage, which affected the judgment. Therefore, the appeal to this point is justified and the judgment of the court below should not be reversed.

Therefore, by the assent of all participating judges, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Han-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court