beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Plaintiff’s assertion
The Plaintiff is the owner of a building on G land in Gyeyang-si. The Defendant is the beneficial right holder of each land C, D, E, and F. Of the Defendant’s land, the Defendant is not allowed to enter a public road even without passing through the lapse of 290 square meters of “A” portion on board connected in sequence 1 through 30, and 1 of the attached Form 1 among the Defendant’s land.
Therefore, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of the right to passage over surrounding land in the instant dispute and, at the same time, sought a removal of each of the above parts of “bb” portion of “B” in the above part of “B” land, D, and C, which connected each of the above parts of “B” to the Defendant, each of the above parts of “B” portion of “B” and “C, 10 through 13, 35, 36, and 10, connected each of the above parts of “B” and the prohibition of interference with passage over the instant dispute land in the future.
Judgment
If a piece of land has no access to a public road, which is necessary for the use of the land, without passing over the surrounding land, and the owner of the land cannot reach the public road, or the cost to reach the pubic road is excessive, he may pass over the surrounding land to the public road, and if necessary he may construct a path.
(The main text of Article 219(1) of the Civil Act). We examine the following: (a) the items and images of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6; and (b) the result of the on-site inspection by this court; (c) according to the results of the measurement, appraisal, commission of appraisal, and the overall purport of pleadings on the smuggling branch of the Korea Land Information Corporation, which are part of the land owned by the defendant, the de facto road has been constructed on the land in dispute of this case, which is a part of the land owned by the defendant; and (d) neighboring residents have passed
However, the above facts alone are not sufficient to see that the Plaintiff’s right to passage over the surrounding land of the instant dispute is acknowledged, but the circumstances acknowledged by Gap’s evidence No. 4, Eul’s evidence No. 2, the result of the on-site inspection by this court, and the purport of all pleadings.