1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is the owner of the Defendant’s land. The Plaintiff is the owner of the instant land, and is the owner of D & D large 258 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) in Nam-gu and its ground building adjacent to the said land.

B. The location of the Defendant’s land and the Plaintiff’s land is as indicated in the Appendix 2, and as indicated in the above drawings, the Defendant’s land and the Plaintiff’s land are adjacent to the Nam-gu road E, Nam-gu, Nam-gu (hereinafter “instant State land”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 6 evidence, Eul 3 and 4 evidence (including each number), the purpose of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The main point of the argument is that the Plaintiff’s land should pass along the instant road in order to reach a contribution from the Plaintiff’s land.

B. The right to passage over surrounding land is recognized only when there is no passage necessary for the use of the land between the owned land and the public road, and therefore, the right to passage over another place cannot be recognized solely on the ground that the passage already necessary for the use of the land is more convenient than the use of the passage.

(1) The owner of the right to passage over surrounding land is entitled to exercise his/her right to passage over surrounding land at the risk of causing damage to the owner of the right to passage over surrounding land for the public interest of using the land without a passage necessary for its use (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da53469, Aug. 19, 2003). However, the right to passage over surrounding land is recognized not only where a certain land cannot be controlled by a contribution surrounded by another’s land owned by another person, but also where a prior passage already exists but it does not actually function as a passage because it is inappropriate to use the land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da53469, Aug. 19, 200).