In addition, “(e) The Defendant filed a claim with the Plaintiff and D for a penalty of KRW 20 million due to the breach of the instant agreement with the Seogu District Court Decision 2016Gadan59208, and the Plaintiff and D filed a claim against the Plaintiff and D for the prohibition of traffic obstruction on the ground that they have the right to passage over the instant land (hereinafter “related lawsuit”). (f) In the relevant lawsuit, the Plaintiff and D’s counterclaim claim (the claim for the prohibition of traffic obstruction) were dismissed on June 20, 2018 on the ground that the right to passage over the instant land was not recognized, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 7, 2018.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Description of Evidence No. 22

2. Determination on the main claim

A. (1) As to the land of this case, the defendant's defense prior to the merits was dismissed and the judgment became final and conclusive in the related lawsuit as to the land of this case, the plaintiff's claim for the prohibition of obstruction of passage based on the plaintiff's right of passage over surrounding land of this case, the plaintiff's claim for the confirmation of right of passage over surrounding land of this case, the claim for removal based on the right of passage over surrounding land of this case,

(2) The res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment is included in the text of the judgment, that is, the conclusion of the judgment on the existence of a legal relationship alleged as a subject matter of lawsuit itself, and does not affect the existence of a legal relationship, which is the premise of the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da5889, Dec. 23, 2010). In addition, the res judicata of a related lawsuit is included in the text of the judgment, i.e., the right to claim the prohibition of interference with passage of the plaintiff and the defendant alleged as a subject matter of lawsuit.