Criteria for determining the scope of traffic rights around the surrounding land;

The right of passage over surrounding land stipulated in Article 219 of the Civil Act is restricted to the use of surrounding land for the purpose of using the land without a passage necessary for its original purpose between the public service and the public service, so the scope of the right of passage is necessary not only to the person having the right of passage but also to be recognized within the scope of the place and method where damage to the surrounding land owner is the lowest. In conclusion, in light of social norms, the scope of passage should be determined in consideration of the topography, location, shape and utilization relation of both surrounding land, neighboring geographical state, understanding of neighboring land users and other circumstances, and it should not be determined as a passage way in preparation for the future use of the land in advance.

Article 219 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Park Jong-chul, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Shin Sung-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu District Court Decision 93Na16480 delivered on September 7, 1994

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s right to use the above portion of the land (hereinafter “the instant land”) was located on the 1st five square meters adjacent to the instant land (the 5th square meters adjacent to the instant land) and was located on the 5th square meters adjacent to the instant land (the 5th square meters adjacent to the instant land), and that the Plaintiff’s land was located on the 5th square meters adjacent to the instant land (the 5th square meters adjacent to the instant land), and that it was located on the 5th square meters adjacent to the instant land (the 5th square meters adjacent to the instant land), and that it was located on the 5th square meters adjacent to the instant land (the 5th square meters adjacent to the instant land), and that it was located on the 5th square meters adjacent to the instant land (the 5th square meters adjacent to the instant land), which was located on the 5th square meters adjacent to the instant land (the 5th square meters adjacent to the instant land), and that the Plaintiff or Nonparty 2 had been located on the instant land.

The right of passage over surrounding land stipulated in Article 219 of the Civil Act is restricted to the use of surrounding land for the purpose of using the land without a passage required for its original purpose between the public service and the public service, and its scope of the right of passage is necessary not only to the person holding the right of passage, but also to be recognized within the scope of the place and method where the damage to the surrounding land owner is the lowest. In conclusion, in light of social norms, the scope of passage should be determined in consideration of the topography, location, shape and utilization relation of both surrounding land, surrounding geographic geographic situation, understanding loss of the neighboring land users and other all other circumstances and then specific cases (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da32251 delivered on April 24, 192, 199), and it should be determined in consideration of the specific cases (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da30528 delivered on December 22, 1992).

According to the records, the portion of 1.5 meters in width, approximately 26 meters in length, and about 39 square meters in width, and the passage itself cannot reach a meritorious deed, while the part of 1.5 meters in width, 1.5 meters in length, 12 meters in size, and 18 square meters in size, which the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff has the right of passage to surrounding land, are a small-type passage for the passage of 1.5 meters in width, 1.5 meters in width, 12 meters in size, and 18 square meters in size, and the above part of 1.2 meters in length and area are less than 1/2 of the above part in the passage itself, and the passage was formed with the outer line of the building constructed on the above part of the defendant's ownership, and the above part of 1.5 meters in length, which is the end, is an existing stairs installed by the defendant for access to the above building, and it is sufficiently possible to view that the above part and the above part of 1.1.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the plaintiff's main claim seeking confirmation of traffic right in the above (a) and (b) without considering the above circumstances, and judged that it is reasonable to recognize the part of the above (a) as a passage to the plaintiff, it shall not be deemed to have committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the scope of traffic right over surrounding land, or by misunderstanding the scope of traffic right over surrounding land, and it is reasonable to point this out.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded without examining the remaining grounds of appeal by the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)