A. Whether the so-called master land is subject to the charges on excessive ownership of the housing site

(b) Restrictions on street width, etc. and traffic rights on surrounding land under the Building Act;

(a) Since it is impossible to grant a building permit under the so-called blind-scale Building Act, which is surrounded by the lands owned by others, all of which are surrounded by the lands owned by others, it falls under the category of “Bed site where the construction of a house is prohibited by the Building Act” under Article 20(1)3 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites and thus, it shall be excluded from

B. Even if there are restrictions on the width of a road in relation to a construction under the Building Act, it is merely an administrative law that requires a road within the same scope when a new construction or expansion of a building is permitted, and it cannot be said that the owner of the land, as a matter of course, has the right of passage over surrounding land, consistent with the width or size of the road as stipulated under the Building Act, as an anti-private interest.

A. Article 20(1)3(b) of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites; Article 219 of the Civil Act; Article 2 subparag. 11, Article 33(1), Article 8(1) of the Building Act (amended by Act No. 4572, Aug. 5, 1993); Article 3(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu2741 Decided June 26, 1990 (Gong1990,1618). Supreme Court Decision 90Meu1091,10107 Decided August 28, 1990 (Gong1990,2021) (Gong1990,2021) Decided May 28, 1991, 91Da91961,978 (Gong1991,1766) Decided June 11, 1991 (Gong1991,1898)

Plaintiff

Attorney Shin-ro, Counsel for the head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu7343 delivered on August 17, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Since the so-called blind land which is surrounded by the surrounding land owned by another person cannot be permitted to construct permission under the Building Act, it shall be excluded from the charges for excess ownership of the surrounding land corresponding to the "B" under Article 20 (1) 3 of the Building Act. On the other hand, since the right to passage over surrounding land under the Civil Act aims to coordinate the interests of neighboring land owners as a right to restrict exclusive right to use the surrounding land, if people have access, and if it is possible to secure a certain range of public transport of things, it shall choose the place and method which is the lowest damages to the surrounding land owner. Further, it shall be decided that the above summary owner of the building can not be allowed to permit the surrounding land by guaranteeing the passage of the necessary width in preparation for the future construction of the building, and it shall not be allowed to permit the neighboring land owner to occupy it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da961, 9978, May 28, 1991).

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)