209dan30894 Confirmation, etc. of traffic rights over surrounding land

△ Council of Korea

Jeonju-si United Kingdom of America

Representative Audit Board 00

Mo○○ (*******************)**)

Jeonju-si, Jeonju-si

March 12, 2010

April 16, 2010

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) confirm that there is a passage right on the ship that connects each point of the heading 2,3,4, 5, 6, 9, and 2 in the annexed drawings in order of the Jeonju-si*** Dong **** ** * * * *;

B. The above paragraph (a) part **** the removal of trees and crops planted on the ground.2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1-b. above may be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence 1 through 3, 5, Gap evidence 6-2, Gap evidence 10, and 11 by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings:

A. The plaintiff is the owner of Jeonju-si ** Dongsan-gu ** Dongsan*** forest ******* (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff-owned land"), and the defendant is the owner of Jeonju-si * Dongsan ** Dongsan** Forest * (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant-owned land").

B. Since the land owned by the plaintiff is surrounded by another person's neighboring land, including the land owned by the defendant, it is necessary to pass through the road of Jeonju-si * National Highway (********dong *****-dong ********** of the land in the same mountain ***-***-****** part of the land in each part of the land and the land owned by the defendant, in sequence of each of the items in the annexed drawings 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 2 among the above (a) part of the land and the land owned by the defendant **** (hereinafter referred to as "the passage in this case"). The defendant is planting the shoulder and gye tree seedlings in the above part (a) above, thereby hindering the plaintiff's passage.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

The Plaintiff asserted that the passage of this case has been used as a passage from the Plaintiff’s land to the public road for a long period of several hundreds, and that the method of passage with the Defendant’s land constitutes the only passage leading to the Plaintiff’s land in the public road, and thus, the Defendant interfered with the use of the surrounding land pursuant to the right to passage over surrounding land under Article 219 of the Civil Act. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to obtain confirmation of the right to passage over surrounding land and to collect trees and crops planted on the passage of this case.

As to this, the defendant, without passing through the land owned by the defendant, has access to the land owned by the plaintiff according to the boundary of the land owned by the plaintiff, the passage of this case leading to the land owned by the defendant is not the only passage leading to the contribution from the land owned by the plaintiff, and even if it is necessary to pass through the land owned by the defendant, the part of the attached drawing of 10, 11, 12, 13, and 10 successively connected to the land owned by the defendant *** ○○○○ in the front city owned by the defendant ** ** the land in the same way as the land **** * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. * * * * * * *- * *. * *- * the plaintiff's right of passage to the surrounding land in this case.

B. Determination

(1) Determination as to the cause of claim

Generally, in a case where no passage is available between a certain land and a public road for its original purpose, the right to passage over surrounding land is recognized when the owner of the land is unable to access the public road without passing over the surrounding land or requires excessive costs, and furthermore, the right to passage over surrounding land cannot be exercised over a road surrounded by the land owned by another, as well as the case where even if the existing passage already exists, it is inappropriate to use the land, and thus it does not actually function as a passage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da53469, Aug. 19, 2003). According to the health stand, No. 1, No. 2, No. 2, and No. 2, and No. 1 through No. 5, No. 2, etc., the lower part of the above land’s passage to the public road cannot be seen to have been owned more than the lower part of the above land’s passage to the public road because it cannot be seen to have been owned by the Plaintiff’s access to the above land.

Furthermore, with regard to the scope of traffic right, it is recognized as a combination of the following circumstances, namely, the (D) portion of the attached drawing table 10, 11, 12, 13, and 10 among the land owned by the defendant, which connects each point of the (d) part of the attached drawing among the land owned by the defendant * * Jinsan-si, Jin-si, Jin-si, which is connected thereto **** ****-- the land is used as farmland for dry field farmers, etc., without a passage leading to the plaintiff's land, and it is possible to enter the land owned by the plaintiff by passing through the above land only if a separate passage is not installed. On the cadastral map, the passage of this case is divided into the land owned by the defendant through the land owned by the defendant, but the gradient of the passage of this case among the land owned by the defendant divided into the boundary of the road of this case * the gradient of the road of this case * the road of this case * the slope of this case * the road of this case * the road of this case.

In light of the fact that if the method of using land differs from the method of using the land, the method of passing through the passage of this case constitutes the boundary of the land owned by the Plaintiff and the method of passing through the passage of this case appears to be the least method for using the land owned by the Defendant among the method of passing through the land owned by the Plaintiff and passing through the public road, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have the right of passing over the passage of this case among

As such, even though the Plaintiff had the right to pass through the passage of this case based on the surrounding land traffic right, the Defendant interfered with the passage of this case by planting trees and crops. Therefore, the Plaintiff has the interest to seek confirmation on the passage of this case against the Defendant, and the Defendant is obliged not to obstruct the Plaintiff’s passage by collecting trees and crops planted on the passage of this case, which interfered with the passage of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

Judges Bohn-be