Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jong-sub, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 21 (Attorney Jeong-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

November 15, 2007

1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff has a right to passage over surrounding land on the part of “B” 25.08 square meters connected in sequence to each point of the attached Form 3, 4, 11, 12, and 3 among Kimpo-si (Dongpo-si, Dong, land category, and size 2 omitted).

2. The Defendants’ respective Plaintiff:

(a) remove 3 meters of bricks and steel pipe fences constructed on the line connecting 3 or 4 the above drawings;

B. No act may interfere with the Plaintiff’s passage to the above part of “B” land.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 2. A. The provisional execution may be effected.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 29, 1996, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of Kimpo-si (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”), Kimpo-si (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”), and as indicated in the attached Form “the ownership relationship among the Defendants, Defendant 1 through July 18, 19, 19, 21, and 22 were co-owners of the instant land located in Kimpo-si (hereinafter referred to as “instant dispute land”) adjacent to the instant land, and owned the ownership right to the instant dispute land as co-owners of the instant land, and the remaining Defendants are co-owners of the instant land constructed on the ground, Kimpo-si (dong 4 omitted) adjacent to the instant dispute.

B. The land of this case is the land in this case, the land in this case to the south, the land in this case to the south, the land in this 19-12, the land in this 19-11 located to the east, the land in this 19-11 located to the north, and the land in this 31-1 and 32 located to the north, each surrounded by the plaintiff, etc. as dry field.

[Ground of Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1 through 29, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 6-1 through 4, and result of on-site inspection by this court]

2. The plaintiff's right of passage over surrounding land and right of prohibition of obstruction of passage

A. The right of passage over surrounding land, stipulated in Article 219 of the Civil Act, is particularly recognized to be used at the risk of damage to the owner of the land, for the purpose of the public interest, which is the use of land without a passage necessary for its use. Thus, in determining the width or location of the passage route, the method of causing less damage to the owner of the land shall be considered. In a specific case, the degree of necessity should be determined based on the geographical features, location, form and use of the land between the parties concerned, neighboring geographical state, neighboring geographical state, understanding of the users of the surrounding land, and all other circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da18661, Jul. 14, 2005). In this case, the right of passage over surrounding land should be recognized to the Plaintiff, since the land in this case is a blind land and it is entirely impossible to enter the public service without passing over or using the surrounding land.

B. Meanwhile, comprehensively taking account of the results of the Nonparty’s survey and appraisal by the Nonparty’s appraiser on the evidence adopted earlier, it is possible to think that each of the land in the instant dispute is used on board among the land in the instant case’s “B” among the land in the instant dispute, the land in the portion of “D” among the land in the instant dispute, and the land in the same part of “D” among the land in the same 19-11.

However, in the case of the above portion of the land, ① a road located in the same 30-7 site, a road located in the same 30-7 site, which is a road, without any particular cost, can be used with the removal of only 30,000 square meters from the wall fenced by the annexed drawing Nos. 3 and 4 connected to the annexed drawing Nos. 3 and 4. However, in the case of the land located in the same 31-1 site of the same 31-1 site of the same 31-2 site of the same 31-1 site of the same 31-1 site of the same 31 site of the same 31-1 site of the same 31 site of the above factory, it is difficult to block the above factory. Furthermore, in view of the fact that the use of the above part of the land is very narrow and difficult to use, the forest land has advantages, but considering the difficulty in using the land in the form of old hill, it seems reasonable to acknowledge the road construction cost to the Plaintiff within the above portion of land No. 31 site of the above.

C. In addition, according to the separate sheet, Defendant 8. to 17., and 20, although Defendant 8. to 17., and 20 did not own the land of this case, they are the owners of each partitioned building of the ○○ Rental Housing constructed on the ground of Kimpo-si (Dong 4 omitted) adjacent to the land of this case, and are still co-owners of the above fence, and are still obligated to allow the Plaintiff to pass the above part of the land of this case.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, in order to use the land of this case to the plaintiff, there is a right to passage over the surrounding land of this case, and the defendants should not interfere with the use of the land of this case (On the other hand, although the plaintiff asserted a right to passage without compensation, there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity thereof, and there seems to be no ground to enforce the agreement with the former owner on the free passage with the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff has the duty to compensate for the losses suffered by the defendants as a result of the use of the land of this case. In calculating this, the part of the land of this case to the defendants, the defendants' share in the land of this case to the defendants, and the use of the land of this case, etc. shall be sufficiently considered).

3. Determination on the request for removal of fences

Since the right to passage over the surrounding land is the right to pass over the surrounding land until the public road reaches the public road, the right to pass over the surrounding land shall be deemed to have the right to claim the removal of disturbance based on the right to claim the surrounding land itself if the passage obstructs, and the Defendants, as co-owners of the above fence, have the obligation to remove the above portion of the land so that the Plaintiff may use the above portion

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff has the right to passage over the surrounding land in the part of the above "B", and as long as the defendants are dissatisfied with this right, there is a benefit to seek confirmation, and the defendants have a duty to remove the above fence, remove the above fence, and not to perform any act interfering with the plaintiff's passage over the above part of the land. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.

[Attachment Form 1] Possession relation and appraisal by Defendant

Judges Cho Young-young