2. Each of the plaintiffs' remainder.

A. On July 31, 2012, Plaintiff B completed the registration of transfer of ownership on land of 100 square meters in Busan-dong, Busan-gu (hereinafter “Ddong”) and its ground buildings, and Plaintiff B, the mother of Plaintiff B, is residing in the said building around that time.

B. Meanwhile, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 19, 1973 and on December 30, 1994 with respect to the land of 224 square meters adjacent to the land owned by the Plaintiff, with respect to the land of 224 square meters adjacent to the land owned by the Plaintiff, each of which was registered on December 30, 1994, and thereafter the said G G 30 square meters was merged into F.

In order for the plaintiffs to pass through a public road, the part of the attached drawing, which is part of the F land, and the part of the attached drawing (abbbb. 1m. hereinafter the "the part of the passage of this case" should be combined with the part of the attached drawing.

C. From November 2015, the Defendant: (a) loaded fire powder, etc. on the instant passage part; and (b) installed steel scrap structures, etc. on the instant passage part.

Accordingly, on December 23, 2015, Plaintiff B filed a provisional disposition against the Defendant for the exclusion of interference with passage, and on December 23, 2015, Plaintiff B received a decision that “if the obligor removes the panel iron set up in part of the passage of this case and removes the passage of the above passage, the obligee shall not interfere with the passage of the above passage part, and if the obligor fails to comply with the above removal obligation within 10 days from the date of receipt of this decision, the obligee may require the enforcement officer to remove the above panel iron at the obligor’s expense (Seoul District Court Decision 2015Kahap10532).”

Plaintiff

B filed a lawsuit against the defendant to confirm the right of passage over surrounding land, and confirmed the existence of the right of passage over surrounding land as to the passage of this case, and the defendant was sentenced to the judgment that the passage over surrounding land should not interfere with the plaintiff's passage over the above passage (Seoul District Court Decision 2015Da239825 decided July 15, 2016) and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

E. The Defendant was pending in the instant lawsuit on or around December 2019.