A. Defendant B indicated the attached sheet No. 11, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21.

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 1,261 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”). The Defendants are all the owners of land adjacent to the land owned by the Plaintiff; Defendant B is the owner of F&425 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant B-owned land”); Defendant C is the owner of land owned by 307 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant C-owned land”); Defendant C is the owner of land owned by Gyeongnam-gun, Namnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do; Defendant D is the owner of land owned by Gyeongnam-do, and the owner of land owned by 307 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant C-owned land”); and Defendant D is the owner of land owned by H large 238 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant D-owned land”) and the above ground building.

B. Defendant B used as part of the road and parking lot having access to the land owned by Defendant B (hereinafter “the part of this case”) in the line of the portion of 21 square meters in the ship (b) connected with each point of the attached Table 11, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, and 11 among the land owned by the Plaintiff, as part of the land and parking lot attached to the land owned by the Plaintiff. Defendant C has connected each point of 13, 32, 32, 31, 30, 30, 28, 12, and 13 in sequence among the land owned by the Plaintiff, the part of 3 square meters in the attached Table 3 (c) [hereinafter “the part of this case”) connected to the land owned by the Plaintiff and 34, 35, 36, 34 of the attached Table among the land owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the attached Table 34, 34, 36, 3444.

[] The Defendant D occupies and uses each land site for a building on the ground owned by the Defendant D. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the result of the appraiser I’s survey and appraisal, the purport of the entire

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants, from among the land owned by the Plaintiff, occupied and used the parts of the instant paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) respectively, thereby hindering the exercise of the Plaintiff’s ownership. Accordingly, the Defendant B, as the Plaintiff did not have any duty.