1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A is the owner of F, G, or H land at the time of harmony, and Plaintiff B is the owner of I, J, K, L through M, or N land. The Plaintiffs are constructing a new apartment house on the above land. Defendant C is the owner of the instant land adjacent to the above land, and Defendant C is the husband of Defendant C.

B. At present, the Defendants recognized the passage of the Plaintiffs on the part (B) of one square meter in the ship connecting each point of the attached Form Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 2, which are three-meter standards for road width, among the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 4 evidence, result of the measurement and appraisal commission for the Korea Cadastral Corporation, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Since the land owned by the plaintiffs' arguments is a blind spot without a passage leading to the public road, in order to pass a public road, part of the land of this case owned by the defendant C needs to be used as a passage, and considering the use of the land owned by the plaintiffs, the width of passage should be 4 meters, and therefore, the plaintiffs seek confirmation of the right to passage over surrounding land (C) among the land of this case and removal of the defendants from disturbance.

B. (1) The right to passage over surrounding land is recognized only when there is no passage necessary for the use of the land between the land owned and the public road (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da53469, Aug. 19, 2003; 2012Ma1417, Feb. 14, 2013). According to the purport of this court’s on-site inspection results, Eul’s evidence 15, and Eul’s evidence 20 (including virtual numbers) and the whole pleadings, the above road has a right to passage over a width of about three meters between the land owned by the plaintiffs and the public road. The above road can be recognized as the fact that many unspecified villages are currently being used by an unspecified village by performing a construction work of an O village village development project under the name of the Corporation for the Construction of an O village development in the 2012.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim is added because the land owned by the plaintiffs has a passage to contribute to the land.