207Gaz. 25010 Prohibited from interfering with traffic

P (50 years old, South)

Law Firm Hayn, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Park Gi-won

D. (49 years old, South)

August 29, 2008

September 26, 2008

1. The Defendant confirms that the Plaintiff has the right of passage on the ship with a total of 64 square meters connected to each point of the attached Form 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 28, 27, 26, 25, 31, 30, 30, and 10 square meters among the 415 square meters of forest land in Busan-gun, Busan-gun.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is the owner of a square meter of 172 meters in the plane of the Busan Metropolitan City, and a square meter of 52 meters in the same plane (hereinafter referred to as "the land owned by the plaintiff" as a whole), and the defendant is the owner of a forest land of 415 meters in neighboring land owned by the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the land in this case").

B. The Plaintiff had been residing and running restaurant in the land without permission on the Plaintiff’s land since several hundreds of years, and entered the instant land with a contribution by using the order No. 1, 8, 8, and 64 square meters in total (hereinafter “instant passage”). The Defendant acquired the ownership of the instant land on July 24, 2001 and did not specifically utilize it. The Plaintiff’s land is surrounded by the State-owned land (public waters) including the instant land owned by the Defendant, and it is not possible to control the public service without using other land. Although it is not impossible to reach a public service by using the said State-owned land, which is not the instant passage, it is not possible for the Plaintiff to use the instant land. However, the said State-owned land covers the coast’s gravel, sand, etc., and it is difficult to use it to use it to make a right-hand passage by using it to the public service.

【Reasons for Recognition】

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, access to the land owned by the plaintiff using other land than the land of this case requires considerable inconvenience or excessive cost (the defendant's assertion contrary to this is not accepted). Thus, the plaintiff's right to passage over the surrounding land of this case shall be recognized. Furthermore, considering the topography, location, shape and use relation of both land of this case, neighboring land's geographical state, neighboring land's profit-making room, and other circumstances comprehensively, the scope of the right to passage over surrounding land of this case is the location, width, and length of the road of this case as part of the passage road of this case among the land of this case.

With regard to the age, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff prior to the plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit against the plaintiff for the removal of an unauthorized building owned by the plaintiff on the land of this case and the transfer of the land occupied by the plaintiff including the road of this case, and completed its execution. At present, the building on the land owned by the plaintiff is unregistered and unauthorized buildings not protected by the law. Since the defendant newly acquired the ownership of the land of this case after the plaintiff started to use the land of this case, it is not possible for the plaintiff to recognize the right to passage over the surrounding land of this case or it is unreasonable for the plaintiff to claim the right to passage over the surrounding land of this case. However, all of the circumstances alleged by the defendant cannot be a legitimate ground to deny the plaintiff's right to passage over the surrounding

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's right of passage over surrounding land is recognized, and as long as the defendant contests this issue, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.

Judges Yellow Dong-dong