2. After an appeal is filed.

A. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of Article 1-b of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of

B. On February 18, 2014, the Defendant acquired the ownership of 130958 square meters of E miscellaneous land in E-si, Echeon-si, and operates “F” at that place.

2. Determination

A. The reasoning of the judgment on the main claim is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance (Provided, That this part is excluded from the third 19 to fourth 9), and that part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(B) The evidence submitted by the plaintiff at the trial alone is insufficient to deem that the defendant possessed the part of the land in the dispute, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it).

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's entry into or departure from the part of the land in question interferes with the plaintiff's exercise of ownership, and that the removal of the disturbance prevents entry into or departure from the part of the land in question, so the plaintiff's joint ownership of the land in question and the land in question is as seen above. The fact that the defendant uses the land in question as the passage to mislead F is not a dispute between the parties. Thus, the defendant is obliged not to enter or pass through the part of the land in question, barring special circumstances.

On the other hand, the defendant first asserts that the part of the land in dispute has been provided for the traffic of the general public for a period of several hundred and twenty years, so the plaintiff cannot seek the prohibition of traffic.

Unless there are special circumstances, it is not allowed for the owner to waive the right of use and profit belonging to the core power of ownership.

This is ultimately against the legal principle of real rights under the Civil Code, which permits only the disposal authority to create new types of ownership.