The judgment below

The part against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the part of the instant land should be deemed to have been used as “road” from December 29, 1999 when the application for provisional injunction against obstruction of passage based on the right of passage against the Plaintiff was accepted by H, etc., the owner of “G land” located in the same location as the Defendant, until December 17, 2007 when the said provisional injunction order was revoked, and thus, the lower court should return to the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the instant land, premised on the premise that the instant part of the instant land was “road” from March 29, 204 to December 17, 207 when the said provisional injunction order was revoked.

B. However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

(1) The right of passage over surrounding land is naturally established upon meeting the legal requirements, and is naturally extinguished upon the termination of the legal requirements.

Therefore, if there is no need to recognize the right of passage over the surrounding land due to the change of circumstances in the situation of the surrounding land, or the owner of the surrounding land acquired the surrounding land, the right of passage is extinguished.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning, around May 2006, the Defendant’s right of passage over surrounding land was already extinguished around May 2006, even if the Defendant’s right of passage over surrounding land was recognized in accordance with the examples of H, etc., since it can be known that a road with a width of 4.5 meters and a delivery of 1.5 meters wide is opened on the south part of the “D land” owned by the Defendant.

(2) Article 219 of the Civil Act provides that if there is no passage between a piece of land and a public road, which is necessary for the use of the land, the owner of the land shall be granted the right to passage over the surrounding land, so that the owner of the right to passage can compensate for the damage