The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that it is difficult to view the Defendant’s possession of the instant land as the de facto controller.

Examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and there is no misunderstanding of the legal principles of possession as a de facto controlling entity, nor errors in the rules of evidence.

2. In addition, the lower court determined that even if the Defendant’s possession of the instant land was recognized, J or L, the former owner of the instant land, provided that the instant land was a passage for access to their own land and its neighboring land, thereby waivering the exclusive right to use and benefit from the instant land, and that there were no special circumstances for the Plaintiff who specifically succeeded to the instant land, to exercise the exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from the instant land.

The argument in the grounds of appeal on this part is about the court below's assumptive judgment, and as seen earlier, insofar as the court below's determination on whether the Defendant occupied the land of this case is justifiable, the legitimacy of the assumptive judgment does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and

In addition, even if the record is examined in light of the relevant legal principles, it cannot be said that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by violating the rules of evidence.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.