2. The Defendant shall draw up the annexed Form on the ground of 673 square meters prior to Gyeong-dong, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of a 1,057 square meters in D farm site in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant land”) and the 750 square meters in E, and the Defendant is the owner of a 766 square meters in F farm site (hereinafter “instant land 2”) and a 673 square meters in B before C (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On February 2004, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from the Defendant and newly constructed a stable on the ground and operated the farm. The north side of the said land adjoins to the instant land owned by the Defendant, and the south side adjoins to the land owned by the Defendant, and the north side adjoins to the land owned by the Defendant, and the south side adjoins to the land owned by the Plaintiff and the land owned by Nonparty H, and the said land adjoins to the land owned by the Plaintiff and Nonparty H and the said land is cut off by the instant dispute land between the public service and the public service. Accordingly, the land of this case was eventually interrupted by the land of this case, which cannot enter the public service without using the land owned by others.

C. After purchase of the instant land No. 1, the Plaintiff had been passing through a road on the part of part of the instant land owned by Nonparty 1,08 square meters and the instant dispute land, which was adjacent thereto. However, in the appellate court of a lawsuit (the Changwon District Court 2010Na1096, 10102 (Counterclaim)) filed against the Plaintiff for a request for the transfer of a part of the said I land, which was used by the Plaintiff as a passage, the conciliation was established to build a road to the extent that the Plaintiff did not infringe on the H’s land.

The Defendant, the owner of the land of this case, was passing through the public road along with the Plaintiff through the land owned by the said H and the land in dispute of this case. However, as the coast road, which was a public road in around 2007, was opened along the neighboring areas, the Defendant opened and used a separate passage linking the coast road with the land of this case, and thereafter, the Defendant was connected with the public road among the land in dispute of this case owned by himself.