2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

- Around August 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 60 million to the Defendant and acquired the said E (including permission for the trading of goods). In the same place, the Plaintiff used the trading of goods with the trade name “F”.

On the other hand, D land is owned by C, and G land adjacent thereto (hereinafter referred to as “G land”) is owned by H, and G land is separated from D land and road.

(See Attached Drawings) . - H around September 2014, 2014, installed steel pents in the part out out of the G land between D and road.

[Grounds for Recognition] A.1 to 4 evidence, Eul evidence 2 (including each number), the result of verification, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The access road to which the said car dealer entered the exhibition place of the said car dealer was located at the left-hand side and the right-hand side at the time when the said car dealer appears on the designated side. However, the right-hand side access road was used as the main access road due to the inconvenience of entering and leaving due to narrow width, and thus the right-hand side access road was used as the main access road.

However, as H installed a pent, access roads to the left-hand side could not be used, and therefore, it was practically impossible for the said car dealer to operate the automobile transaction business.

(2) At the time of the Defendant’s transfer of E to the Plaintiff, there was no pentice between the said car dealer and the road, but there was a long conflict between C and H. In fact, even before H had installed a pentice on G land, and even before H had been removed from the Defendant’s objection, H was likely to install a pentice at any time. However, the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of this fact with the knowledge of such fact.

(3) Accordingly, the status between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.