1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts (the fact that there is no dispute)

A. Defendant B is the owner of the area of 692 square meters (hereinafter “one land”) and the area of 279 square meters (hereinafter “2 land”) prior to Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, and the Plaintiff is the owner of the area of 837 square meters (hereinafter “three land”) in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun.

B. Defendant C is the husband of Defendant B.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff ought to cultivate three land by using a meteorite, etc. The Plaintiff has no passage between three land and a meritorious deed. Therefore, the Plaintiff has a right to passage over surrounding land under Article 219 of the Civil Act as to the land of 33 square meters in the attached Form No. 1 among the land owned by the Defendant B and the attached Form No. 43 square meters in the attached Form No. 2, among the land owned by the Defendant B.

B. Determination 1) Since the right to passage over surrounding land is recognized only when there is no passage necessary for the use of the land between the land owned and the public road, the right to passage over surrounding land may not be recognized to another place solely on the ground that the passage is more convenient than that necessary for the use of the land owned (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da1088, Jun. 13, 1995). In a case where there has already been an existing passage, the right to passage over surrounding land is recognized only when it is inappropriate for the use of the land, and it does not actually function as a passage, or excessive expenses are required for the construction of a passage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da53469, Aug. 19, 200; 2012Ma1417, Feb. 14, 2013). In a case where the right to passage over surrounding land under Article 219 of the Civil Act is determined to the extent of damage to the owner’s right to passage without consideration.