1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s land owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”) and the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s land of 16 square meters and 849 square meters and 24 square meters before the date of Incheon-gun E.

2) The Plaintiff’s land is the owner of the land that is not connected to the present meritorious service and is not allowed to enter a public road without going through the surrounding land of this case.

3) The Defendant, as the owner of the surrounding land of this case, has set up a fence Nos. 1 and 2 fences in the part of the passage of this case and obstructed the passage of the Plaintiff. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence No. 1-1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 1-2, Gap evidence No. 5-1 through 3, the result of the appraiser I’s measurement and appraisal, the purport

B. Determination 1) In a case where there is no passage between a certain land and a public road, which is necessary for the use of the surrounding land, the owner of the surrounding land may pass the surrounding land to the public road without passing over the surrounding land or requiring excessive expenses. Meanwhile, since the right to pass over the surrounding land is restricted to the use of the surrounding land for the use of the land without a passage necessary for its use between the public road and the public road, the scope of the right to pass over the surrounding land is not necessary for the person holding the right to pass over the land, but within the scope of the place and method where the damage to the surrounding land is less low, the scope of the right to pass over the surrounding land must be determined after considering the topography, location, shape and utilization relation of the surrounding land in light of social norms, neighboring geographic land, understanding of the users of the surrounding land, and other circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da71424, Jun. 22, 2006).