1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is that "the result of partial on-site inspection by this court, the result of appraiser G's appraisal by this court," "the result of partial on-site inspection by this court, the result of appraiser G's appraisal by the first instance court," "this court" in the first instance court, "this court" in the second instance court, "the closing of argument in this case" in the third instance court, "the result of the third instance court's closing of argument" in the second instance court, and "the result of the third instance court's CD verification" in the third instance court's second instance judgment, and "the result of the third instance' in the second part of the third instance court's judgment" in the second part of the third instance court's judgment, other than adding the judgment in the second part of the second part of paragraph 2, it is identical to the part of the reason for the second

2. Furthermore, the right to passage over surrounding land, as stipulated in Article 219 of the Civil Act, is particularly recognized to be at the risk of causing damage to the owner of the right to passage, for the purpose of public interest, which is the use of land without a passage necessary for its use, between the public interest and the meritorious service. As such, in determining the width or location of the passage route, the method of causing less damage to the owner of the right to passage shall be considered. In a specific case, the degree of necessity should be determined based on the topographical, location, shape and use of the land between the parties in question, neighboring geographical state, understanding of the users of the right to passage, etc

(2) In the case of this case, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the width, location, etc. of the passage of this case was selected in such a way as to less damage to the Defendant, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, as seen earlier, the defendant owns most of the lands that pass through the existing passage, and the plaintiff's use of the existing passage is the largest damage to himself.