In the case of recognition of right of passage over surrounding land under Article 219 of the Civil Act

The right of passage over surrounding land under Article 219 of the Civil Code, if there is no passage between a certain land and a public road necessary for the use of the surrounding land, can be recognized only when the owner of the surrounding land cannot have access to the public road at all unless he passes over or passes over the surrounding land.

Article 219 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 156 (Gong1988, 501) (Gong198, 501) (Gong198, 501) (Gong198, 198) and 10746 (Gong1989, 989, 91Da3251, 1676) (Gong192, 1676)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Defendant Kim Sang-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 91Na35068 delivered on July 15, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

In light of the records, the court below's finding that the defendant has the right of passage over surrounding land as to the 4m2 of the attached drawing (A) of the judgment below among the land in this case owned by the plaintiff, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the right of passage over surrounding land.

The right to passage over surrounding land under Article 219 of the Civil Act, if there is no passage necessary for the use of the surrounding land between a piece of land and a public road, can be recognized if the owner of the land is unable to access the surrounding land at all without passing over or passing over the surrounding land, and if an excessive cost is required. According to the attached drawings of the judgment below, the land owned by the defendant is linked to the road, but its length is not less than 1.5 meters. However, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, if the land is located at a place higher than that of the public road, and the passage through the road is more than 2 meters, the stairs should be installed to ensure that the owner of the surrounding land occupies the building, so it is impossible or impossible for the defendant to use the road to pass over the road without removing the building, and the part of the land owned by the defendant is more than that of the road to be owned by the defendant, and it is more than that of the road to be owned by the defendant, and the part of the land owned by the defendant is more than that of the road.

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

On the second ground for appeal

The court below deemed that the land of the above part (A) is the place and method with the largest damage to the plaintiff, and the above judgment was made, and since the above disposition of the court below seems legitimate, it cannot be said that there was an error of law in the incomplete hearing, like the theory of lawsuit, in the judgment below. It is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.