1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the E Forest land E, 1,519 square meters, F Forest land 80 square meters, and G road 50 square meters (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Plaintiff’s land”).

B. The Defendant is the owner of the C road 151 square meters and D road 104 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in total, of each land owned by the Defendant.

C. The Plaintiff’s land and the instant land are not located immediately adjacent thereto. There are land between the Plaintiff’s land and the instant land and the instant land, such as 14,492m2, 14,492m2, 673m2, 1,003m2, J forest and field, 741m2, 152m2, and 285m2, etc. between the Plaintiff’s land and the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 9, the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a blind spot where there is no passage way to go to the Defendant’s neighboring land, and there is excessive cost to go to the public for the purpose of getting access to the Plaintiff’s land without passing through each of the instant roads. Therefore, for the use of the Plaintiff’s land, the right of passage to the surrounding land to use each of the instant roads should be recognized, and the Defendant should not interfere with the Plaintiff’s passage, and remove the facilities installed on the instant land that interfered with the Plaintiff’s passage.

B. Determination 1) It is recognized that the right to passage over surrounding land under Article 219 of the Civil Act cannot exercise overall control over a contribution by surrounding another’s land, as well as where a certain land is surrounded by another’s land, and even if the existing passage has already been in place, it is deemed inappropriate to use the relevant land, and thus has not actually performed a sufficient function as a passage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da53469, Aug. 19, 2003).