2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of a penalty of neglect of origin, F. F. F. 36 meters, G. 46 meters, and the Defendant is the owner of a penalty of neglect of origin, which is C. 41 meters (hereinafter “instant road”) and H miscellaneous land, 6,313 meters, respectively.

(hereinafter referred to as "land only by lot number").

The Plaintiff newly constructed a building on the land of E (hereinafter “instant building”) and submitted an application for the execution of the instant water supply works (hereinafter “instant water supply works”) on July 30, 2014 to implement the said building. However, from the Sungnam city, the Plaintiff received a reply from August 5, 2014 that the landowner’s consent to the use of the land should be attached to the instant water supply works in order to implement the instant water supply works from the Sungnam city. In order to implement the instant water supply works, the Plaintiff must pass through the instant road and install water pipes, etc. on another’s land pursuant to Article 6(4) of the Ordinance and Article 2(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Ordinance.

C. Notwithstanding the Defendant’s response made on August 5, 2014, the Plaintiff failed to submit a written consent to the use of the instant road due to the failure to obtain the Defendant’s consent regarding the use of the instant road, and eventually, on August 12, 2014, Sungnam-si returned the Plaintiff’s application for water supply works of this case, and notified the Plaintiff of the return thereof around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 9, 11, 12, 14 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff asserted that water supply, sewage and sewage, communications, gas pipes, and electric cable installation works for the building of this case (hereinafter "the construction of the facility of this case") can not actually be performed unless they pass through the road of this case. Even if the construction of the facility of this case can be performed through other land than the road of this case, there is a very excessive cost, so the plaintiff has the right to carry out the construction of the facility of this case on the road of this case pursuant to Article 218 of the Civil Act. Thus, the defendant expressed his/her intent to allow the plaintiff to use the road