1. Basic facts

A. On October 31, 2007, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land, and the Defendant from September 15, 1988 to 998 square meters of D factory site adjacent to the instant land (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).

c. is a juridical person engaged in marina manufacturing, etc.;

B. If the Defendant’s land leads to a second line of return from the Defendant’s land, it should go through F, which is the ownership of the Republic of Korea, the land of this case, and the land of Chungcheongnam-do, and there is no other passage that can go to a contribution.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The defendant's right to the land of this case 1) since the defendant used the land of this case as a passage without any problem for 26 years, the defendant asserts that the passage right to the land of this case was acquired by prescription. Thus, the provisions of Article 245 of the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis only to the continuous and express right. Thus, the passage right can be recognized only when the owner of the dominant land has continued the objective situation where the owner of the dominant estate constructed a road on the dominant estate of this case and uses the servient estate of this case for the period prescribed in Article 245 of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da74939, Jan. 28, 2010). Since there is no evidence to recognize that the defendant voluntarily opened the passage right to the land of this case as a passage right, it cannot be deemed that the defendant acquired the passage right to the land of this case by prescription. Accordingly, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(b) claims against the principal office;