The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

The plaintiff's total costs of litigation.

The reasons stated in this part are as follows, except for the following dismissal or addition, the relevant part of the reasons in the judgment of the first instance.

(The main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). The three-one to five-one-five (b) of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows.

With respect to “B. F land and D land are connected to the following forests, and they are designated as a parallel passage through the above land. At any time prior to March 2018, the Defendants installed a steel fence on the line connecting each point of the 3,17, and 21 in the attached Form No. 3 of the appraisal drawing at any time prior to the instant road, which is a part of the passage for confusion.” On the 3rd of the first judgment of the court of first instance, the portion of the 5th sentence “(the part indicated as “children’s park” among the above H land)” is 390 square meters from among the above H land (the part indicated as “children’s park,” among the above forests), the upper part of the 390 square meters (the part indicated as “children’s park,” and the part on the walk’s upper part of the said land) together with L land.”

Following the third below of the judgment of the first instance, “Undeveloped” was added to “(However, the location of the site in the park was modified as “the site in the park” as shown in the annexed Form No. 3, and became a form close to the well-being of a little amount than before).”

The evidence No. 20, No. 1 shall be added to the grounds for recognition.

The plaintiff's assertion by the parties cannot pass through the land designated as a children's park site, and M land cannot pass through as a result of granting permission to occupy and use a road to the defendants at the Southern City.

I It is impossible to pass through land.

Ultimately, the F cannot enter the land as a contribution without passing through the passage of the instant case.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, the owner of F land, has the right to pass along the instant road, and the Defendants have the duty not to remove the steel fence installed on the instant road and not to obstruct passage.

H land located immediately adjacent to the Defendants’ assertion F land is owned by the Plaintiff, and it is a road that is flat.