1. The Defendants also refer to the Plaintiff’s appraisal map in the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

1. The Plaintiff is the owner of 982m22m2 (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”). The Defendants are the co-owners of Q29,028m2, Q28m2 (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”), a neighboring land, do not conflict between the parties, or are recognized by each entry in Gap’s Nos. 1, 6, and 8 (including those with serial numbers).

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that in order to pass the plaintiff's land to a public road on the plaintiff's land as a master land, part of the defendants' land should pass through. Thus, the plaintiff's right to passage over surrounding land should be recognized under the Civil Act.

Accordingly, Defendant F asserts that there is no need to recognize the Plaintiff’s right of passage over surrounding land.

B. Determination 1) In a case where there is no passage between a piece of land and a public road, which is necessary for the use of the surrounding land, and the owner of the surrounding land cannot access the surrounding land to the public road or requires excessive cost, without passing over the surrounding land to the public road, and the passage may be established if necessary (Article 219(1) of the Civil Act). In a case where the owner of the surrounding land has no passage between a piece of land and a public road to the public road for the use of the surrounding land, the passage right to the surrounding land cannot access the public road at all without passing over or passing over the surrounding land. The passage right to the surrounding land under Article 219 of the Civil Act limits the use of the surrounding land to the public road for the use of the surrounding land without a passage necessary for its use. Thus, the scope of passage right is necessary for the owner of the passage right, and the method and place of causing the least damage to the surrounding land owner, in light of social norms.