A. From around 2007, E and the Defendants, the husband of the Plaintiff, purchased various parcels of land located in F in the G, G, and created the site, and each of the following houses was established, and E agreed to handle all of the businesses.

B. On October 9, 2007, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the sale on September 6, 2007, with respect to G forest land G 598§³ and H 476 square meters prior to H (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”).

C. On October 9, 2007, the Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 6, 2007 with respect to each 1/2 portion of 1/2 shares of 725 square meters in Gyeongnam-gun, JJ large 764 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) and D forest land 712 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

In around 2011, the Defendants newly constructed two bonds on the land owned by the Defendants, and resided therein, and utilize all of the instant land as an access road.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 14 (including provisional number), Eul evidence 5, 6, 8, 16, 17, 21 and 22, each of the statements and images, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as a result of the on-site inspection by this court,

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In full view of the evidence adopted prior to the recognition of the right to passage over surrounding land and the facts and circumstances acknowledged based on the results of the fact-finding conducted by the head of this court, the Plaintiff’s right to passage over surrounding land of this case is recognized, although it has an existing passage between the Plaintiff’s land and the public road, it is inappropriate to use the Plaintiff’s land and thus does not actually function as a passage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da53469, Aug. 19, 2003). Since it appears that excessive costs are needed for the Plaintiff to pass over the land of this case without the passage, the Plaintiff’s right to passage over surrounding land of this case

① The land owned by the Plaintiff is classified as forest and farmland.