Of the land size of 1,712 square meters in Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, the attached appraisal map is marked 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,7,8,9,10,11, among the land size of 1,712 square meters.

The Plaintiff is an owner of 1,527 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff-owned land”) prior to Dong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

The Defendant is the owner of a 4,495 square meters and C forest land owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Defendant-owned C”) and a 1,712 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant-owned C”).

Attached Form

The appraisal of each point of 1 and 12 is marked with the iron gate installed by the defendant on the front line.

) There is an issue. [In the absence of a dispute over the ground for recognition, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the result of the on-site verification by this Court, the result of the survey appraisal, the purport of the whole arguments by the plaintiff's assertion of the parties, as follows, that the defendant alleged to the purport of the whole pleadings cannot immediately go to a contribution from the

Therefore, according to the order of the defendant's appraisal of the land owned by the defendant in attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 1 among the land owned by the defendant, "not more than two parts in attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,

It is confirmed that there is a right to passage over surrounding land with respect to the area of 62 square meters, and shall not be engaged in any act interfering with the passage of the plaintiff with respect to the above land, and there is a duty to remove the instant

The defendant's assertion ① The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff was living in the Changwon and visited the plaintiff's land only once every month, so it is not practically necessary to pass to the plaintiff.

② The Plaintiff’s existing paths used in the village refers to the attached Form No. 4-2 photograph No. 4-2, hereinafter “Defendant’s assertion”.

B Using the land owned by the Plaintiff to contribute to the public.

③ The part of the instant case, which the Plaintiff asserted to open a passage, is likely to undermine the Defendant’s residential safety and peace as it does not fall within 10 meters from the Defendant’s house.

(4) The scope of the right to passage over surrounding land shall not be determined in advance in preparation for future use, and only the passage of the land owned by the plaintiff shall be necessary to the extent that the land is walking on the road at present.