1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the F 960 square meters in the wife population in Yongsan-si (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”). Defendant B is the owner of the 4304 square meters in the wife population E in Chungcheongnam-si, and Defendant C is the owner of the 4304 square meters in the wife population E (hereinafter “Defendant B”) and Defendant C is the owner of the G 417 square meters in the wife population in Tae

B. As indicated in the attached Form B, the southwest of the Plaintiff’s land and the northwest side of Defendant B’s land are adjacent to the indication of the attached Form No. 1, (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), and (1) of the Defendant B’s land are connected in order to each point (hereinafter “instant passage”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 and 5 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. If the Plaintiff’s assertion that the land category of the Plaintiff is appropriate, a road with a width of at least four meters must be secured.

However, since it is difficult for the Plaintiff to secure the above road without passing through the instant road owned by the Defendant B, Defendant B should confirm that the Plaintiff has the right to pass over the surrounding land on the instant road. The Defendants, which might interfere with the Plaintiff’s passage, should not interfere with the Plaintiff’s passage through the said road.

B. Determination 1) The right of passage around a road is particularly recognized at the risk of damage to the owner of the land where the land is located, in a case where there is no passage necessary for the use of the land between the public road and the public road, so that the width, location, method of passage, etc. of the passage road may be less than the least damage to the owner of the land where the land is located. This shall be determined in accordance with social norms by taking into account the topographical and locational features and utilization relationship of both land, surrounding geographical features, surrounding geographical features, interests of the users of adjacent land, and other relevant circumstances in a specific case (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Da39422, Jan. 12, 2017). The scope is more recognized within the scope of the use of the land in accordance with the current method