2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On December 21, 2010, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of a F.F. 633 square meters and G 1,404 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) in Pyeongtaek-gun, Gyeonggi-do, and thereafter is a person operating a camping site and penta (hereinafter “instant camping site”) with her husband I from around 2012 to her husband in 2012.

B. On January 30, 1998, Defendant B acquired ownership of 4,387 square meters adjacent to each of the instant parcels of land (hereinafter “instant plot of land”) and used it as a weekend farm, etc., Defendant C and D were the children of Defendant B, and were transferred the ownership of the instant plot of land from Defendant B on October 23, 2014, and Defendant E is the father of Defendant D.

C. In order to reach a public road from the so-called “franchising land,” the instant land should be used as a passage road formed in accordance with the K-gun of Gyeonggi-gu and Gyeonggi-do (the actual status of which is a road) (hereinafter “instant passage”), which is the adjoining land, and if not, it requires excessive costs.

However, from around 2014, the Plaintiff couple prevented the Defendants from passing through the instant road by installing garbage, blocking, and container stuffs on the instant road. During that process, Defendant D, E, and E were seriously disputed on July 13, 2014 and September 20, 2014.

E. On October 8, 2014, Defendant B filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and I with the District Court 2014Gadan117540, which sought confirmation of the right to passage over surrounding land and prohibition against interference with passage along the instant road (after Defendant C and D succeeded, Defendant B withdrawn from the instant lawsuit). The Plaintiff also filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendants on October 10, 2014.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 9, 13, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 13, oral arguments.