(a) In cases where a third party illegally occupies a parcel of land not opened as a road and therefore offered for the general public, whether the right of passage to such land is infringed on;

(b) Where any land which was leading to the original contribution is unable to be contributed to the original contribution due to a division or partial transfer, whether the owner of such land is entitled to pass through a third party’s land that is not a decomposition or transferee;

A. Even if the general public has the right to freedom of passage, which is worth protecting under the Civil Act, within the scope essential to their daily lives, it is recognized as a right by respecting the factual state of free passage of the general public. If a certain portion of land is not established as a road, and it is a secret to be provided once to the general public, even if a third party illegally occupies it, it cannot be deemed that the right to freedom of passage, or its benefits, which the general public can enjoy with respect to the above land, are practically and concretely infringed.

B. In a case where a parcel of land, which was originally connected to the original contribution, is not connected to the transfer of a part of the land, the owner of the land may pass through another disassembly or transferee's land and may not pass through a third party's land, and the same applies to a case where a part of the land is transferred while the land belongs to the ownership of the same person.

A. Article 219 of the Civil Act: Article 220 of the Civil Act

2. Supreme Court Decision 90Da12007 delivered on June 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 1898) 90Da12670, 12678 delivered on July 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 2218) 91Da137324 delivered on April 28, 1992 (Gong192, 1705)

Drathos

Park Young-hee

Jeju District Court Decision 9Da22508 delivered on November 27, 1991

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the court below shall be revoked.

The judgment below held that the defendant shall not obstruct the plaintiff's passage on the ship with the same drawings as 0.4 square meters on the (D) section of the stone string ground housing constructed in the order of 0.4 square meters among the land areas of 1014 square meters on April 2, 983 in Jeju-si, Jeju-do, and 2, 983, which connect each point to the plaintiff, and shall not obstruct the plaintiff's passage on the ship with the same drawings as 4.4 square meters on the (d) section of the stone string ground housing constructed in the order of 0.4 square meters on the (d) section 4.4 square meters, each of which is constructed on the 4.4 square meters of a stone string ground constructed in the order of each point.

1. Basic facts

In full view of the following facts: Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 16, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 2, 3, and 6; Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 6; the result of the on-site inspection conducted by the court of original judgment; the result of the survey and appraisal conducted by the appraiser in accordance with the lower court; and the purport of the pleading as to Jeju-si 2, 90.6m2, 990 for the plaintiff's land No. 1983m2, 983(hereinafter referred to as "the site No. 983m2, Apr. 2, 1983"); the part of the above house No. 34,6m2, 1983(hereinafter referred to as "No. 983m2, Apr. 23, 1967; and the defendant stated the above part of the above house No. 983m2, a road No. 19834, etc.

2. The plaintiff is the cause of the claim in this case. First, the plaintiff's land owned by the plaintiff was accumulated up to 20 land of Dong 2, 983-3-35 and 34 land of the same 983-3 and the above 983-34 site owned by the defendant, which is adjacent Jeju-si, and since the plaintiff does not pass through the part of the land in this case currently possessed by the defendant, it is nothing more than the road of the above 983-4 road, which is a contribution, without passing through the part of the land in this case, and as part of the right to use the above road or the right to claim removal of interference based on the right to use the above road, it is argued that the defendant seeks removal of the above (c) and (d) above ground and the removal of the kitchen house and the part of the land in this case, and therefore, the defendant claims removal of the plaintiff's interference with the plaintiff's passage on the land in this case.

그러므로 살피건대, 위 갑 제2,3호증 및 각 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제4호증, 갑 제5호증의 1,2, 갑 제6호증의 1,2, 갑 제7호증의 2,3, 갑 제8호증의 2,3,4, 갑 제9,10,14,15호증, 을 제1,4 내지 7호증, 을 제8호증의 1,2, 공문서부분에 관하여는 성립에 다툼이 없고 사문서부분에 관하여는 당심증인 고관명의 증언과 변론의 전취지에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 제11호증의 1 내지 4, 공증부분의 성립에 다툼이 없으므로 그 기재에 의하여 사문서부분의 진정성립이 추정되는 을 제9,10호증의 각 기재, 원심증인 김기성, 당심증인 고관명, 진공민, 황금자, 김태억, 강성중의 각 증언(다만, 증인 고관명, 진공민의 각 증언 중 뒤에서 배척하는 부분 제외)과 원심법원의 위 사실조회결과 및 당심법원의 제주시장에 대한 사실조회결과에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 소외 고관명은 1967.6.13. 기존의 도로로 이용되던 제주시 일도리 628의 5 토지에 접하여 공로에 통할 수 있었던 소외 문정중 소유의 위 같은 리 628의 9 대 38평(1968.8.21. 분할되어 28평으로 감평되었음, 같은 번지의 10대 50평, 같은 번지의 20 대 49평, 같은 번지의 21 대 6평 등 4필지를 매수하고, 피고는 1967.5.23. 소외 김광익 소유의 위 같은 번지의 7대 40평을 매수하여 1969.10.29. 그 지상에 앞서 본 위 주택을 신축한 사실, 위 고관명과 피고는 1967. 말경 위 고관명 소유의 위 628의 10 및 같은 번지의 21 토지 부분과 피고 소유의 위 628의 7토지 부분과의 경계를 명확하게 하기 위하여 별지도면 표시 , 및 , 을 연결하는 담장을 설치한 사실, 그런데 위 일도리 일대의 토지는 위 제주시가 1969.12.30. 건설부장관의 환지계획인가를 받고 시행한 제주시 신산지구 토지구획정리사업에 의하여 1972.8.31. 환지처분 되어 위 같은 리 628의 10 대 50평은 같은 리 983의 19 대 65.5평으로, 같은 리 628의 20 대 49평은 같은 리 983의 20 대 58.2평으로, 같은 리 628의 7 대 40평은 같은 리 983의 34 대 38평으로 환지확정되었으나, 위 일도리 628의 21 대 6평은 위 고관명에게 청산금만 교부되고 기존의 도로로 이용되던 위 같은 리 628의 5 토지에 포함되어 환지처분됨으로써 제주시 소유의 위 983의 4 도로 301평으로 되었는데, 이 사건 토지 부분이 포함된 위 983의 4 도로는 위 토지구획정리사업에 의하여 도시계획법상의 소방도로로 환지확정되었으며 이와 같이 위 628의 21 토지 부분이 아닌 이 사건 토지 부분이 위 983의 4 도로의 일부로서 확정되는 바람에 피고는 제주시 소유의 이 사건 토지 부분을 불법점유하게 되어 버린 사실, 한편 원고는 1990.6.15. 위 고관명으로부터 위 983의 19 대지를 매수하여 같은 달 22. 위와 같이 소유권이전등기를 경료하였는데, 당시 원고 및 위 고관명은 지적공부상 위 도로 부분이 위 고관명 소유의 위 983의 20 토지 부분에 위치한 것으로 알고 동 토지 부분 지상에 공로로 통하는 출입로의 설치공사를 시작하다가 비로소 위 도로 부분이 피고 소유의 위 983의 34 대지 부분에 위치하게 된 것임을 알게된 사실, 원고 소유의 위 983의 19 대지는 인접한 위 제주시 일도 2동 983의 35, 36, 11, 12, 18, 20 토지 및 피고 소유의 위 983의 34 대지로 둘러싸여 있어서 원고로서는 피고가 점유하고 있는 이 사건 토지 부분을 통과하지 아니하고서는 실제로 일반의 통행에 제공되고 있는 공로인 위 983의 4 도로에 이르는 길이 없는 사실 등을 각 인정할 수 있고 이에 반하는 당심증인 고관명, 진공민의 각 일부증언은 이를 믿지 아니하며 달리 반증 없다.

According to the above facts, the part of this case's land at issue is a road established as a road by a replotting disposition on August 31, 1972, which became final and conclusive, and has no yet yet been established as a road thereafter, and thus, it is no proper way to pass through the plaintiff or the above senior official name. Further, even when the plaintiff purchases the above 9-19 site, it can be known that the plaintiff or the above senior official name did not raise any objection without knowing that the part of this case's land falls under the road at issue. Thus, as a general use relation of public water, the use of a road which is a public object is nothing more than the benefit of public law regulation, but at the same time, the general public has a right to pass through a road which is a public object within the scope essential to the daily life, and even so, it is acknowledged that it is a right to pass through the public freely, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the part of this case's land, including the above general use right, can be viewed as an unlawful use right of the plaintiff's land at issue.

3. Next, the Plaintiff asserts that, based on the Plaintiff’s ownership on the site of the said 983-19 site, the Plaintiff is entitled to claim the removal of disturbance and the exercise of the right to claim the prevention of disturbance, which are a real right claim, and that the Defendant who interferes with the entry into the said site owned by the Plaintiff seeks the removal of the said house

Therefore, the owner of the land shall have the right to use and profit from the land, and the above use and profit-making capacity include the right to freely access from the land. Thus, he may request removal and prevention of disturbance against the person who interferes with the ownership by preventing free access. However, the exercise of the right to demand removal of obstruction of ownership is realistic and specific interference, and the exercise of the right to demand removal of obstruction of ownership is required as above. As seen earlier, the part of the land in question is not established as a road, and it is not possible to offer it only once for the general public. The defendant's possession of the part of the land in question was made more than 19 sites of the above 983-19 sites, and the above part of the land in question was owned by the plaintiff and the above part of the land in question under the premise that the plaintiff's possession of the land in question and the above part of the land in question did not interfere with the plaintiff's ownership at the time of the above site in question, and it is without any knowledge about the above part of the land in question.

4. Finally, the plaintiff argued that the above 983-19 site owned by the plaintiff was surrounded by 2,36,11,12,18,20 land and the above 983-34 site owned by the defendant, even at the neighboring Jeju-do, 2, 35, 36, 11, 12, 18, and 20 of the above 983-34 site, and that the plaintiff had a right to passage over surrounding land under the Civil Act as to the part of the above 983 site owned by the defendant, since the plaintiff did not have a passage over the above 983-4 road, it cannot be said that the above 983-19 site owned by the plaintiff was owned by the above 9-20 owner of the above 93-20 land, which was owned by the above 9-3 owner of the above high-ranking land, and the above 9-28-5 land could not have been divided into the above 9-1960 land.

5. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court below with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of appeal cost.

Judges Jeon Soo-chul (Presiding Judge)