1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 494m2 (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s land”) in the Si of official residence, and the Defendant is the owner of 131m2 (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant’s land”).

B. As indicated in Appendix 2, approximately 1.5 meters of the boundary of the Plaintiff’s land adjoins to their meritorious services, and the remainder is surrounded by the Defendant’s land and E, F River, G field, and H land, and the Defendant’s land adjoins to their meritorious services.

C. On March 23, 2017, the Plaintiff submitted a construction report to obtain a building permit on the Plaintiff’s land, but on June 2, 2017, the said construction report was rejected on the ground that “at least two meters of the site of the building adjoins to the road” goes against Article 44(1) of the Building Act.

On September 18, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the return disposition, but the Chungcheongnam-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 23 and 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In order for the Plaintiff to build a new building on the Plaintiff’s land, the Plaintiff’s assertion should adjoin a road of at least two meters pursuant to Article 44(1) of the Building Act.

However, since the Plaintiff’s land adjoins to a contribution of 1.5 meters or more among the boundary of the Plaintiff’s land, it is necessary to secure a passage route of at least 0.5 meters. If the Plaintiff has the right of passage on the part (B) of one kilometer (hereinafter “instant land”) connected in sequence 6, 7, 8, and 6 of the attached Table 1 appraisal map, it is possible to obtain a building permit by linking at least two meters with a contribution.

On the other hand, even if the land of this case is provided as a passage in light of its location and area, there is no substantial disadvantage to the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant should confirm that the plaintiff has the right to pass over the surrounding land, and should not interfere with the plaintiff's passage over the surrounding land.