H land adjacent to the above F land is owned by the above clan (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land” and “Defendant’s land”) and the Defendant’s land was a passage leading to the Plaintiff’s land and the public road (hereinafter “instant access road”).

However, there is a dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant clan, and the Defendants installed obstacles not to use the access road of this case around April 2012.

(2) On June 15, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a provisional disposition against the Defendants, such as the prohibition of traffic obstruction, etc., with the Gwangju District Court 2012Kahap814, and the said court rendered a decision to the effect that the Defendants shall discontinue the instant interference and remove the obstacles, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have access to the access road other than the access road in this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1-2, significant facts, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was to set up a low temperature warehouse on the Plaintiff’s land and store the spons and vessels harvested. However, due to the Defendants’ unlawful obstruction, both waves 20kg set the shipment time of 400 boxes and 20kgs, and disposed of all of them.

Therefore, the Defendants seek payment of damages amounting to KRW 36,807,00 [20,000 for damages amounting to KRW 5,00,000 for damages amounting to KRW 36,80 for damages amounting to KRW 13,830 x 400 x 46,000 for the disposal of stuffs x 46,000 for personnel expenses)].

B. After the Defendants closed the access road of this case, the Plaintiff purchased the Plaintiff’s land adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land. Since the Defendants could have access to public service even through the said land, it is irrelevant to the instant interference act and the Plaintiff’s damage.

. The vehicle is the vehicle.