A. (1) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the appointed party C (hereinafter “Defendant, etc.”) for prohibition of traffic interference and indirect compulsory performance based on the surrounding land right (where the Defendant, etc. interfered with the above traffic, referring to the amount of money in proportion to KRW 19,20,21,22, and 19, indicated in the annexed drawing among the 898 square meters of land owned by the Defendant, etc., the Plaintiff, in sequence, connected each point of the 898 square meters of land owned by the Defendant, etc., including the Defendant, to the Plaintiff, on the ground that: (a) the same constitutes a case where the Plaintiff is unable to enter the public road without going through the attached drawing or where excessive cost is required for access to the public road; (b) the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for prohibition of traffic interference and indirect compulsory performance based on the surrounding land traffic right (where the Defendant, etc. interfered with the traffic).

(2) On April 22, 2016, this Court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff’s claim for the prohibition of interference with passage on the following grounds and partly dismissing the claim for indirect compulsory performance.

The appeal by the Defendant, etc. (2016Na29776) and the appeal (2017Da212712) were all dismissed, and the judgment of the first instance court was finalized on April 28, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as “the preceding judgment of this case.” The order of a claim for prohibition of traffic obstruction: The Defendant, etc. shall not plant trees or install any other structures, which are likely to obstruct the passage of the Plaintiff with respect to the area 2,00 square meters in the attached Form No. 19, 20, 21, 22, and 19, among the area of 898 square meters of land among the area of 19, 20, 21, 22,

The grounds for filing a claim for prohibition of interference with passage: The defendant, etc. denies the plaintiff's right of passage over the surrounding land, and there is difficulty in exercising the plaintiff's right of passage over surrounding land, which is recognized as the land of this case due to the boundary stone and trees installed or planted by the defendant, etc.

B. (1) After the judgment of the instant case was rendered, the Plaintiff, as F of June 27, 2017, owned the instant dispute by reason of the Plaintiff’s breach of duty of omission against the Defendant, etc.