(a) Scope of right to passage over surrounding land and criteria for judgment thereof;

B. Relationship between the establishment of the right to passage over surrounding land and the practical use of the main point thereof

A. The right to passage over surrounding land, stipulated under Article 219 of the Civil Act, is limited to the use of surrounding land for the purpose of using the land without a passage necessary for its use, so the scope of the right to passage should be recognized within the scope of the place and method where the damage of the owner of the surrounding land is the lowest, as well as the person who has the right to passage should be recognized within the scope of the place and method where the damage to the owner of the surrounding land is the lowest. In conclusion, in light of social norms, the scope should be determined individually and objectively according to specific cases, taking into account the topography, locational phenomenon, and use of the surrounding land, the actual condition

B. Since the above owner has the right to maintain the value of the land and to maintain the right to use the land in a state where it can start considerable use of the land at any time, the right to passage necessary for future use of the surrounding land should be recognized within a reasonable extent, regardless of whether it is actually used or not.

Article 219 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 76Da1359, 1360 Decided October 26, 1976

Plaintiff

Attorney Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 86Na1796 delivered on April 8, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Since the right of passage over surrounding land stipulated in Article 219 of the Civil Act limits the use of surrounding land for the purpose of using the land without a passage necessary for its use between the public road and the public road, the scope of the right of passage is not only necessary to the person holding the right of passage, but also within the scope of the place and method where the damage of the owner of surrounding land is the lowest (see Supreme Court Decision 76Da1359, 1360, Oct. 26, 1976). Such scope should be determined individually and objectively according to specific cases in light of social norms, in light of the geographical features, location and utilization relation of both surrounding land, the relation between the geographical features, location and use relation, the surrounding land, the understanding and loss of users of surrounding land, the present passage or passage situation, and all other circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 85Meu129, Oct. 22, 1985). Meanwhile, since the owner of the above summary maintains the value of the surrounding land and has the right to use the surrounding land at any time, it should be acknowledged within the future use of the right.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below established a 80-meter high-level retaining wall around the land owned by the defendant, and established a 80-meter high-level retaining wall around it. Most of the remaining parts of the land owned by the defendant were installed, and a 80-meter high-level retaining wall was connected to each of the above 80-meters on the line where the above 80-meter block was constructed, and a 80-meter high-level retaining wall was connected to the above 80-meters on the wall, but the 84-meter lower court's housing was connected to the above 80-meters, but the 88-meter portion of the land owned by the defendant was not used as a 9-meter lower-level road, and the above 8-meter portion of the land was connected to each of the above 8-meters constructed with the above 8-meters road. The court below's determination on the ground that there was no error in law by the defendant's construction of the above 9-meter road.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)