A. The plaintiffs are the owners of each of the lands and the above-ground buildings in Daegu I (A), J (B), K (C), and L (D), and the defendant is the owners of the roads (the respective lands indicated in the order) to be used as access roads to the above land and buildings.

B. Without using the above road owned by the Defendant, gas pipelines cannot be laid underground on the above housing in which the Plaintiffs reside.

(See Attached Form) . [Evidence] The fact that there is no dispute

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the plaintiffs have the right to install urban gas pipelines on the land owned by the defendant as stated in the order pursuant to Article 218(1) of the Civil Act, and there is a benefit to seek confirmation against the defendant who contests such right.

B. The defendant asserts that if the above road usage fee is not paid, the plaintiffs' claim cannot be complied with.

However, since the payment of road usage fees is not a premise for the above facility rights, it cannot be a ground for defense for the plaintiffs' claim for confirmation of facility rights.

However, according to Gap evidence No. 17 (A's certified copy of judgment), the defendant had been ruled against plaintiff Gap et al. by the court 2001Gada103566, which ruled against the plaintiff et al., and considering the surrounding land situation in this part, it appears that the land owned by the defendant constitutes the land for which exclusive use and the right to benefit has been renounced. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

C. However, there is no evidence that the defendant interfered with or is likely to interfered with the construction of the above road portion as to the plaintiffs' assertion of the right to install the above road portion, and therefore the remaining claims of the plaintiff

3. Partial acceptance of the Plaintiff’s claim