A. On March 5, 2015, the Plaintiffs owned land and buildings as indicated below. On March 5, 2015, the Plaintiffs owned the land and buildings as follows. On March 8, 2011, the Plaintiffs: (a) on March 5, 2011, the land and buildings owned by the owner; (b) the Plaintiff: (c) the land and buildings owned by the owner; (d) the Category I Green Living Facilities (hereinafter “instant building”); (c) the Plaintiff, the land of which is the land of the instant land, G, and D, the first class neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”); and (d) the land of the Plaintiff, the land of which is the land of the instant case, on March 5, 2015, 201.

() On January 22, 2016, Plaintiff A2) the Defendant, on August 20, 2014, is the owner who acquired KRW 990 square meters for H-gun in Chungcheongbuk-gun, and KRW 132.8 square meters for detached houses above ground, and KRW 1311 square meters for I before Chungcheong-gun, Chungcheongnambuk-gun, I (hereinafter “instant surrounding land”).

B. In the instant building, Plaintiff B operates a cryp business selling coffee and daily miscellaneous, Plaintiff A operates an agricultural and fishing village gambling business under the trade name called Jpenta (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s penta”), regardless of the Plaintiffs’ business, and the Defendant also operates cryp in its own house.

(hereinafter “Defendant’s pension”). C.

The plaintiffs' pension and defendant's pension are located near Donsan, a regional well-known tourist destination. In order to enter each pent of the original defendants, such as the indication of the actual survey plan (Evidence No. 3) submitted by the defendant, the original defendants must pass through the local highway (No. 517 Line) through the temporary bridge and enter the road by at least 100 meters.

The above passage roads (hereinafter “the existing passage roads of this case”) are able to pass through a vehicle with a width of about four meters wide, among the land N in the Cheongbuk-gun of Chungcheongbuk-do and the surrounding land of this case owned by the defendant, and they are attached to the entrance of the plaintiffs' penta and the entrance of the defendant penta.

However, the defendant, around March 2016, placed a large of 70 cm high in height on the boundary of the surrounding land in this case at a place where the plaintiffs' fences were used as the entrances of the existing road of this case among the existing road of this case.