Uijeongbu Attorney Favorable Judgment Case | The Uijeongbu Attorney Assisted a Client Subject to a Provisional Injunction Prohibiting Obstruction of Passage, Resulting in a Favorable Judgment

The client first met the creditor in front of the building on the land at issue in this case (the client's place of business).

Before purchasing the land at issue in this case, the creditor asked the client whether he could manage the land if the creditor bought it, and the client declined because operating his place of business alone was already demanding.

At the time, the Uijeongbu attorney's client was in the middle of reconstruction work because there was a problem with his place of business.

The client had not only operated his business at that place for several decades but had also leased the place to acquaintances who needed it.

The creditor asked the client whether he could pass in front of the client's place of business by vehicle, and the client said that allowing vehicle passage would interfere with operations and that people passing through could file malicious complaints, so vehicle passage would be difficult.

The client thereupon recommended land other than the land at issue in this case to the creditor, and the creditor looked into it as well, but, citing various reasons, began to repeatedly request that the client open a way, insisting that he had to buy the land at issue in this case.

The Uijeongbu attorney's client said that, given the nature of his line of business, frequent vehicle passage could cause significant disruption to operations, so it was not possible, but that he would not block people from passing on foot.

After the Uijeongbu attorney's client said that he would not block people from passing on foot, the creditor came in front of the client's house and caused a disturbance.

The creditor hurled insulting remarks and abusive language at the client.

On the day of this incident, the client had a sign made and installed it in front of his place of business.

The creditor in the case of the Uijeongbu attorney's client caused a disturbance once again, and the client reported it to the police.

The police explained that he should drive stakes at the entrance and mark it.

Even after the police left, the creditor committed various outrageous acts, such as urinating in public.

Following the police's advice, the client called workers in order to install the stakes.

Thereafter, the creditor filed this application for a provisional injunction prohibiting obstruction of the applicant's passage for the purpose of harassing the client of the Uijeongbu attorney.

Under Article 219 of the Civil Act, the right of passage over surrounding land may be recognized not only where there is no passage necessary for the use of a piece of land between that land and a public road, such that the owner of the land cannot access the public road at all without using surrounding land for passage or as a passageway, but also where doing so would require excessive cost. However, where a passage necessary for the use of the owned land already exists, a right to pass through another location cannot be recognized merely because it is more convenient than using that existing passage. In addition, where the landowner has caused the difficulty of passage, such as by constructing a structure blocking the public road between the land and the public road, the right of passage over surrounding land cannot be recognized.

In the Uijeongbu attorney's case, the creditor claimed that the creditor could not access the creditor's land without passing through the land subject to passage in this case, but this is not true.

It has long been possible to travel on foot through a route used by other residents, yet the creditor is asserting a right to pass through the land subject to passage in this case merely on the ground that it is more convenient.

Above all, according to the map, there appears to be no particular road for the creditor to travel by vehicle through the client's land in this case to the creditor's land, and the road behind the client's land is so overgrown and neglected that not only people but also vehicles cannot properly pass through it.

The reason the creditor insists on having to pass through the land subject to passage by vehicle is difficult to understand.

Accordingly, the creditor does not hold any right to be preserved, such as the right of passage over surrounding land.

In the Uijeongbu attorney's case, the creditor has not acquired the right of passage over surrounding land, so there is no room to discuss the necessity for preservation either. Nevertheless, on behalf of the client, the attorney sought to rebut the creditor's assertions.

The creditor claims that the creditor would suffer financial loss if access to the land subject to passage in this case were prohibited. However, considering that the creditor purchased the land for the purpose of entertainment and recreation in the first place, that the creditor was aware that significant harm would arise to the client if vehicles regularly traveled through the land subject to passage in this case, that the Uijeongbu attorney's client had told the creditor that passing on foot through the land subject to passage in this case was acceptable, and that the road behind the client's land in this case is, in fact, so difficult that not only vehicles but also people can hardly pass through it, the preservation sought in this application for a provisional injunction is not necessary.