1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. 원고의 주장 원고는 피고 토지에 인접한 여주시 D 대 551㎡(이하 ‘원고 토지’라고 한다) 및 그 지상 주택(이하 ‘원고 건물’이라고 한다)의 소유자인데, 피고 토지를 통하지 않고서는 공로에 출입할 수 없으므로, 원고에게 피고 토지 중 이 사건 ㈎토지에 관한 주위토지통행권이 있다고 할 것임에도, 피고가 이를 인정하지 않고 있어 그 확인을 구한다.

2. The right to passage over surrounding land under Article 219 of the Civil Act may be recognized if the access road is inappropriate for the use of the land concerned, and thus, if the access road actually does not function as a passage or requires excessive expenses for the construction of a passage, as well as where a separate access road exists, as a result of the land surrounded by the land owned by another person. However, the right to passage over another place cannot be recognized solely on the ground that the access road is more convenient than the use of the passage, if there has already been a passage necessary for the use of the

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da53469 Decided August 19, 200, 95Da1088 Decided June 13, 1995, and 2012Ma1417 Decided February 14, 2013, etc.). However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the overall purport of pleadings in the descriptions and images of the evidence Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 (including the paper numbers) as follows: (i) the Plaintiff’s land is obvious that it is not a blind party, as indicated in the attached cadastral map (hereinafter “instant road”); (ii) the Plaintiff’s land and building owner appears to have obtained the building permit as an access road at the time of new construction of the Plaintiff’s building; and (iii) the Plaintiff’s land and building owner prepared the instant road through the existing road, and (iv) the Plaintiff’s assertion that it is impossible to prove that it is possible to use the confirmation document.