Whether or not it is recognized as a specific successor who acquired the land on which the right of free passage is promulgated under Article 220 of the Civil Act.

This Article, which provides for a right of free passage, shall not apply to a specific successor to a land or passage, either directly divided or partially transferred, which is applicable only between the parties to the land or passage.

Article 220 of the Civil Act Article 219

Burialline;

Goblings

Busan District Court Decision 64Na228, 567 delivered on April 12, 1965

The part rejecting the conjunctive claim by the Lessee among the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The remaining appeals by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff are dismissed.

Defendant Counterclaim (hereinafter Defendant Counterclaim)’s ground of appeal No. 2

Even after comparing the original judgment with the records, the court below did not find out any evidence supporting the fact that the plaintiff agreed to the defendant to recognize the right to passage on the site of 73-15 Msan-dong 73-3, Msan-dong, Msan-dong, Msan-dong, 73-15, the plaintiff's possession, and therefore

The third ground of appeal is examined as follows.

The argument that there is a passage other than the land of the original case and the land owned by the defendant between the plaintiff and the land of the original case, which are alleged in the paper of this case, is alleged in the original judgment and without being judged by the original judgment, and is alleged in the original court which is a legal trial, and therefore, it is not

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3

Since it cannot be said that the original judgment passed through the site of 75-1, Minsan-dong 75-1, Minsan-dong, Minsan-dong, which is owned by the defendant, it cannot be said that the defendant suffered the most

The court below, based on evidence, found that each site owned by the original Defendant was owned by the original owner of the non-party's name and the non-party's ownership was transferred to the defendant with a thickness of 1956, and the remaining part was prevented by having contributed to the defendant, and that the plaintiff purchased the remaining site from the former owner of the non-party's ownership. Accordingly, Article 220 of the Civil Act, which provides for the right of free passage, stipulates that the land owned by the original defendant shall not be applied to the specific successor of the land or the passage of the land applied only between the parties to the direct molecule or partial transfer and the specific successor of the land or the passage, although the original owner of the non-party's ownership was purchased with a thickness of 1956, and thereafter, the court below held that the defendant is not liable for compensation if the plaintiff becomes unable to pass through the remaining site as the plaintiff's ownership, and it did not affect the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles of Article 220 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, the part of the original judgment dismissing the conjunctive claim by the Lessee is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division, and the defendant's appeal as to the main claim and the remaining counterclaim are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Madung (Presiding Judge) Kim Gung-bun and Madlebro