1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 31, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the land of 100 square meters in Busan-dong, Busan-gu (hereinafter “Edong”) and the building on that ground. The Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the land owned by the Plaintiff on December 19, 1973 with respect to the land of 194 square meters adjacent to the land owned by the Plaintiff, on December 30, 1994, with respect to the land of 194 square meters adjacent to the said land, and the said D large 30 square meters was merged into C.

In order for the plaintiff to pass through a public road, the main part of the claim and (b) (hereinafter referred to as the “the passage part of this case”) should be combined with the main part of the

B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for confirmation of the right to passage over surrounding land, and confirmed the existence of the right to passage over surrounding land, and the Defendant rendered a judgment that the passage over surrounding land should not interfere with the Plaintiff’s passage over the above passage (Supreme Court Decision 2015Da239825 Decided July 15, 2016) and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 through 1-4, 3, 7-1, 7-2, Eul evidence No. 2, the result of the commission of surveying and appraising the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The part of the passage of this case, which is the cause of the claim, was the only passage for the access to the land owned by the plaintiff, but the defendant installed a fence on the above passage. The defendant sought removal of the wall against the defendant based on the right of passage over surrounding land.

B. For the display of the original function of the right of passage over surrounding land, a structure such as a wall that obstructs the passage should be removed by the exercise of the right of passage over surrounding land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da70144, Jun. 2, 2006). However, on the other hand, since the right of passage over surrounding land is particularly recognized at the risk of damage to the owner of the right of passage over surrounding land for the public interest, which is the use of land without a passage necessary for its use between the public interest and the public interest.