A. The plaintiffs and the defendant own land in Jinnam-do, Jinnam-do, Iriri-ri, and people who own land.

(The lands related to this case are located in the Gi-ri, Jin-si, Jin-do, and the following land is indicated in the parcel number, land category, and area of the land. The details of the lands owned by the plaintiffs and the defendant are as listed in the following table, and the location of each land is as listed in the cadastral map.

[Plaintiff-owner] Plaintiff 1: (a) 822/982 square meters in N-U. 271 square meters in N-U. 272 square meters in a N-U. 277 square meters in a 1466 square meters in a K-U. 508 square meters in a 508 square meters in a land; (b) Plaintiff 271 square meters in a N-U. 277 square meters in a orchard; (c) Plaintiff 272 square meters in a 471 square meters in a 479 square meters in a DM-U. 472 square meters in a 739 square meters in a e-U. 242 square meters in a 564 square meters in a 242 square meters in a 987 square meters in a land

B. In order to enter a public road on each land owned by the original Defendant, the “U” should pass along the current state of “U”. The “U” is installed on the land owned by the Republic of Korea, such as V orchard 975 square meters, K orchard 146 square meters owned by the Plaintiff, 1135 square meters, W orchard 1135 square meters, H forest owned by the Defendant, 424 square meters, etc.

C. The part on which the “U” is installed among H-owned H 424 square meters of forest land owned by the Defendant is a part of 41 square meters in a ship connected each point of the attached Table 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 1 (hereinafter “instant property”).

[Ground of recognition] Evidence A Nos. 1 through 5, Evidence B Nos. 12 (including paper numbers), the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the result of the appraiser X's survey and appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The defendant's assertion does not obstruct or restrict the passage of the plaintiffs, and the fact that the real estate in the dispute in this case is owned by the defendant cannot be said to have any existing legal uncertainty for the plaintiffs.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim seeking confirmation of the right to passage over the surrounding land is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

B. Relevant legal principles.