The client blocked an entry gate to prevent nearby fishing village residents from passing through his private land, which he owned, to utilize the land for personal purposes. The members of the fishing village association sued the accused for obstruction of business, arguing that the land owned by the accused had long been used as a passage to access the fishing grounds from the village, and blocking it interfered with their fishing activities, thus constituting the crime of obstruction of business.

- Whether the path on the accused's property qualifies as a "passage" and whether the plaintiffs have the right to pass through the property.
- Whether the accused exercised "force."
- Whether the plaintiffs' "fishing activities were obstructed."



3. Our Argument and Role

We first identified that the previous owner of the land from 1996 to 2022 controlled access and that the land was within a military protection zone, where passage was restricted. We also found that there was a cliff between the land and the fishing grounds, proving that the land was not used as a passage to the fishing grounds. This refuted the plaintiffs' claims.

Furthermore, we argued against the plaintiffs' claim of "free passage rights due to the relinquishment of exclusive use and enjoyment rights" or "right of passage to surrounding land." We showed that from 2019, when the previous owner installed an iron gate and fence, until 2022, the plaintiffs did not pass through the land, indicating that the owner had never permitted free use or relinquished the rights to use and enjoy the land. We pointed out that the right of passage to surrounding land applies only when there is no public road between the land and other properties, and since the plaintiffs were not landowners and the sea is not a public road, this claim was irrelevant and based on a legal misunderstanding.

We further demonstrated that the accused, who had purchased the land with an existing iron gate and fence, had not exercised any particular "force," and that the plaintiffs had continued their fishing activities despite restricted passage by the previous owner, meaning their claims of obstruction were baseless.



4. Significance of the Judgment

On the basis of our defense, the police decided not to pursue the case, explicitly stating in the non-indictment decision that there was no illegality in the client's use of the land, thereby protecting the client's property rights. This case required a thorough legal analysis that addressed both civil and criminal law issues, including the right of passage to surrounding land and the relinquishment of exclusive use and enjoyment rights. We effectively handled these complexities throughout the case.

□  Attorneys in charge: Choi Moon-Ki, Ko Eun-Young and Choi Young-Su