1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is that the part of the "decision on the assertion of the right to passage over surrounding land" in the judgment of the court of first instance (Articles 10 and 15) is identical to the part concerning the plaintiffs in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the assertion of the right to passage over surrounding land

A. The right of passage over surrounding land is not always fixed to a specific place, and it is confirmed that the land meeting the requirements stipulated in Article 219 of the Civil Act at the time of the closing of pleadings is a certain land. Therefore, when the owner of the surrounding land changes the method of use of the land which was used as the existing passage according to the method of use, the owner of the surrounding land has no choice but to move to another place where the damage is less than the damage to the owner of the surrounding land

The Supreme Court Decision 208Da75300, 75317, 75324 Decided June 11, 2009 (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da75300, 75317, 75324, etc.). Meanwhile, the right to passage over surrounding land is recognized only when there is no passage necessary for the use of the land between the ownership and the public road, and therefore, the right to passage over surrounding land cannot be recognized solely on the ground that the passage is more convenient than

(Supreme Court Decision 95Da1088 delivered on June 13, 1995). On the other hand, the term "public road" refers to a road where the public may freely pass through, and includes a private road as long as the private road can freely pass through without necessarily limiting it.

B. In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances are the results of the on-site verification conducted by the Health Team, Gap evidence Nos. 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the court of first instance and this court, which are acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings.