The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Changwon District Court Panel Division.

1. On the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined that the instant site constituted a road provided for the general public’s passage, based on its stated reasoning.

Examining the record, the above determination by the court below is justifiable.

In doing so, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on roads offered for the general public’s passage.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. The lower court acknowledged the fact that the instant land is offered to the general public as a road owned by the Haan-gun for the passage of the general public. The Plaintiff transferred the ownership of the instant land on October 25, 2006, and embling a farmer on the said land; the end part of one room of the instant land adjoins the instant land; the Defendant installed a steel fence around April 2001 on the boundary of the instant land and the instant site; and the Defendant, around April 2001, installed a steel fence on the boundary of the instant land and the instant site; due to the said steel fence, was unable to access the instant land by the Plaintiff.

Based on the above facts, the court below held that the defendant's installation of the above steel fence constitutes an illegal act as an illegal infringement against the plaintiff's freedom of passage, since it constitutes an unlawful infringement against the plaintiff's freedom of passage only for the plaintiff, who is the owner of the land of this case, and thus, the defendant is obligated to remove the above steel fence by excluding the obstruction of passage to the land of this case.

B. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the lower court.

(1) Any person seeking to pass through a land solely on the ground that it is in a state of public offering.