The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Since the right of passage over surrounding land as stipulated in Article 219 of the Civil Act is particularly acknowledged at the risk of damage to the owner of the land under way for the public interest purpose of using the land without a passage necessary for its use between the public service and the public interest. When determining the width, location, etc. of the route, the method of causing the least damage to the owner of the land under way shall be considered. The degree of necessity should be determined based on the geographical location, location and utilization relation of the land under ordinary social norms, neighboring geographical location and use relation, understanding of the user of the land under way, and all other circumstances in a specific case

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da18661, Jul. 14, 2005). The scope of the right to passage can only be recognized within the scope of the use of the current land in accordance with the use of the land, and it does not be determined in preparation for future use.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da30993 Decided October 26, 2006, etc.) The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that it is difficult to view that there was no passage between the Plaintiff’s land and the public road necessary for the use of the Plaintiff’s land as a means of use of the Plaintiff’s land, and that the expenses incurred by the Plaintiff in entering the Plaintiff’s land to contribute to the Plaintiff’s public road using the existing passage route are larger than damages caused by the Plaintiff’s infringement of residence and privacy and the infringement of property rights, and thus, dismissed all Plaintiff’

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the requirements and scope of recognition of the right

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided by the assent of all participating Justices.