A. The Plaintiff Incorporated Foundation A owns G and H land and the second floor building thereof (hereinafter “the instant inspection”) in public cities, and the Plaintiff B owns I and J land used as the parking lot for the instant inspection (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”).

B. After K newly constructed the instant temple on June 26, 1991 and registered the preservation of ownership, the owner of the instant temple and the owner of the instant temple 357 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) were used as a pedestrian or vehicle passage through which the said temple, etc. passes, and part of the portion of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 19, 19, 20, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 144 square meters of the portion inside the instant temple (hereinafter “the instant land”).

C. Around April 2017, the Defendant, who owned the instant land, opened up soil, rocks, etc. on the instant land, and now, it is possible to walk up the instant land on the surface of the instant land, but it is impossible to pass up the vehicle.

L on October 16, 2017, completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land to the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. Since the instant land based on personal rights has been used as a pedestrian passage or vehicle passage for at least 30 years by residents and students of neighboring M& University, the Plaintiffs are entitled to pass along the first road out of the said land based on personal rights.

B. Since the land of this case is the only passage to the public road from the plaintiffs' land to the public road, the plaintiffs have the right of passage to the surrounding land as stipulated in Article 219 of the Civil Code against the first passage to the above land.

3. Determination

A. The owner of ownership of the right of access based on personal rights.