209Gaz. 23258 Confirmation, etc. of traffic rights over surrounding land

OOOOOOOOO

Suwon-si District:

Representative Lee 00

Law Firm United States et al.

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

1. ZO (A, 57 years old, male);

Suwon-si District:

2. Lighting○ (B, 35 years old)

Gunpo-si

Defendants Law Firm OOO

Attorney Cho Jae-han

March 12, 2010

April 30, 2010

1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff has a common right on the “inboard” portion 1, 2, 3, 2, 10, 11. 12, 13, and 14. 1, and 14. 2, the Plaintiff has a common right on the “inboard” portion 00 m2, 00 m2, 00 m2, 00 m2.

2. The Defendants should not interfere with the Plaintiff’s passage of the said part of “B”.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

4. Of the litigation costs, 50% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendants.

Purport of claim

- OOdong 00 - 0,000 m2, 1, 2, 3, 4

(1) It shall be verified that a person has a right to pass a part of 00 square meters in a ship connected in sequence of each point.

They should not interfere with the plaintiff's passage through the above part.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a tenant of 00 OOdong 00- 000m (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff's land"), and the defendants are co-owners of the same 00 - 0 - 0 0,000 (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant's land").

B. The plaintiff's land is surrounded by the land owned by others, including the defendant's land, and the shortest route from the plaintiff's land to the contribution is the defendant's land.

C. At present, the Plaintiff’s land is a building not owned, and the Plaintiff is not using the Plaintiff’s land.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-1, 2. Gap 3. Results of verification and appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Whether the right of passage over surrounding land is recognized

(1) In a case where there is no passage between a certain piece of land and a public road, and there is no passage necessary for the use of the surrounding land, the owner of the surrounding land is entitled to access to the surrounding land without passing over the surrounding land or passing over the road, and if the surrounding land requires excessive costs, he may pass over the surrounding land (Article 219(1) of the Civil Act), and the Plaintiff has the right to pass over part of the

(2) As to this, the defendants' filing of the claim in this case with the plaintiff's negligence without using the plaintiff's land at present was derived from the intent that the defendants would make a brupt to the defendant's land and gain a certain benefit by providing a brush to the defendants as they planned to sell the building in the defendant's land. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim in this case should be justified because it does not require the passage or constitutes an abuse of rights.

(3) In light of the above, the owner of the Bapoto land has the right to maintain the value of the land and at any time to commence considerable use of the land. Thus, regardless of whether it is actually used or not, the right to passage necessary for future use of the surrounding land should be recognized within a reasonable scope (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1156, Feb. 9, 198). Therefore, the mere fact that the plaintiff is not actually using the plaintiff's land, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff is unnecessary to pass through the defendant's land, or that the plaintiff's claim of this case is filed with the same intention as the defendant's assertion. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(b) Scope of traffic rights over the surrounding land;

(1) The Plaintiff asserts that since the Plaintiff plans to build a building on the Plaintiff’s land, the passage, such as the purport of the claim, should be secured.

(2) We examine the following. The right of passage over surrounding land is a right to limit the exclusive right to use the surrounding land by its owner, which is for the purpose of coordinating the understanding between neighboring land owners, and if it is only possible to secure a wide range to the extent of people's access and to transport certain objects by public service, the owner's damage to the surrounding land should be the lowest place and method. Furthermore, it is not necessary to determine the passage way in advance in preparation for whether the use of the surrounding land is recognized within the range of the current method of use. In this case, the passage to the extent of people's access and the delivery of certain objects by public service cannot be uniformly determined, and its location and scope are changed depending on specific circumstances such as the land category and the necessity for its use (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da30528, Dec. 22, 1992).

(3) Therefore, it is not necessary to consider that the Plaintiff plans to build a building on the Plaintiff’s land in determining the scope of the Plaintiff’s right of passage. If the Plaintiff is able to secure only a wide range of people’s access to and transport of a certain size of goods on the Plaintiff’s land, the Defendant’s place and method should be selected as the lowest damages. The Plaintiff’s land category is ’the answer’, the Plaintiff’s land category is ’the Plaintiff does not use the Plaintiff’s land at present, and considering the shape of the Defendant’s land, it is reasonable to determine that the Plaintiff’s right of passage is granted only under Article 1(b)(5m wide) of the Disposition. Of the Plaintiff’s above assertion, the part exceeding

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is partially accepted, and the remainder is dismissed.

Judge Cho Soo-soo