2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff was the owner of Jeju-si Gri (hereinafter “Gri”) 2,926 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”). The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 7, 2016 due to donation.

B. E is owned by Defendant C with a share of 330/3,121, and Defendant D with a share of 2,791/3,121, and 82 square meters of F forest land (hereinafter “Defendant C”) is owned by Defendant C.

C. Defendant C owned land. Around 2007, Defendant C filed a lawsuit against Defendant D and Korea for confirmation, etc. of traffic rights under the Jeju District Court Decision 2007Kadan11322 in order to secure access roads to meritorious services, but purchased 330/3,121 shares of J-owned forest land of 3,121 square meters, and thereafter, the Defendants shared E land due to division of 330 square meters of forest land E from J land, and completed the registration of ownership by purchasing 82 square meters of forest land from Korea.

[In the absence of dispute, Gap 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), Eul 2 and 4]

2. The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s assertion that the Plaintiff succeeded had a farming shed on the Plaintiff’s land. To pass a public road, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor has the right to pass a ship with a size of 165 square meters on board and Defendant C’s land indicated in the claim

3. The right to passage over surrounding land is recognized not only where a certain land cannot be controlled by a public road surrounded by another’s land, but also where, even if there has already been an existing passage, it is inappropriate to use the land so that it does not actually function as a passage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da53469, Aug. 19, 2003). However, if there has already been a passage necessary for the use of the land, the right to passage over surrounding land cannot be acknowledged solely on the ground that it is more convenient than the use of the passage

Supreme Court Decision 195.14