1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part on “B” with the indication of the attached Form No. 2,719 square meters in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, and the part “C” with the indication of the attached Form No. 3 square meters.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are co-owners (each 1/2 shares) of Ulsan-gun E, Ulsan-gun E, 655 square meters (hereinafter “E”) and F 2,221 square meters (hereinafter “F land”), and the Defendant is the owners of D paddy-gun 2,719 square meters (hereinafter “D land”).

B. There is a passage connecting the part of “C” to the farm road, “B” to the farm road, “B” to the farm road, H road 228 square meters in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, which is a public road with E land and F land, and the part of “C” to the farm road, “B” to the farm road, “H road 28 square meters in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, and the attached appraisal map3, 4, 5, 6, and 3, to the farm road in turn.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1-8 evidence, results of a request for surveying appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiffs asserted that they intend to build a new factory on E land and F land. Since there is no truck passage between the above land and G road, which is a contribution to the above land, necessary for transporting the building materials, etc., they have the right to passage over surrounding land under Article 219 of the Civil Act as to D's land owned by the defendant, "A", "B", and "C".

B. Determination 1) The scope of the right to passage over surrounding land is not only necessary for the person with the right to passage, but also within the scope of the place and method where the damage of the owner of the surrounding land is the lowest possible extent. The scope of the right to passage over surrounding land should, in light of social norms, be determined in accordance with specific cases after considering the topography, location and use relation of the surrounding land, surrounding geographical features, geographical features and use relation, neighboring geographical features, gains and losses of the users of the surrounding land, and other various circumstances. Furthermore, the scope of the right to passage over surrounding land is recognized within the scope of the use of the current land in accordance with the current usage method, not the passage way in preparation for the future use situation (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da33433, Nov. 296) and the portion “C” is currently used as farming, and the defendant is not a party who expands the part “B” and “C” but a passage over the surrounding land.