1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall draw up the attached Form 1 among the land size of 82 square meters in Syang-si, the plaintiff.

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the confirmation of the right to passage and the prohibition of interference with the part of the land in question, and the removal of the obstacles. The first instance court dismissed the claim for removal of the obstacles and accepted the claim for the confirmation of the right to passage and the prohibition of interference.

Accordingly, the defendant only appealed against the above cited part, which is subject to the judgment of this court, is limited to the claim for the confirmation of the traffic right and the prohibition of interference.

2. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's assertion is bound to pass through the land owned by the defendant in order to go to a contribution from the land owned by the plaintiff, and it is the most economical and less method to pass through the part of the land in the dispute in this case to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff has a right to pass over the part of the land in the dispute in this case, and the defendant shall not interfere with the plaintiff's passage. 2) Since the plaintiff's right to pass over the part of the land in this case without passing through the part of the land in the dispute in this case to the land owned by the plaintiff, it is unreasonable to allow the plaintiff

B. Determination 1) The recognition of the right to passage over surrounding land is recognized not only where one land cannot exercise overall control over the contribution surrounded by the land owned by another person, but also where even if the existing passage has already been in place, it is inappropriate to use the land so that it does not actually function as a passage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da53469, Aug. 19, 2003). In this regard, the following items are included as follows: (a) Dokne, A, Nos. 3, 10 through 14, and Nos. 2 (a number is included in each number).