A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the 1,329 square meters and the 1,448 square meters prior to the Gangseo-gun E and the 1,348 square meters prior to the F, and the Plaintiff B is the owner of the 1,345 square meters prior to G.

B. The Defendant is the owner of D forest land 4,382 square meters adjacent to each of the above lands owned by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as “E land”) and each of the lands owned by the Plaintiffs and the Defendant in the same manner as “E land”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and summary of the plaintiffs' assertion of the purport of whole pleadings

A. In order to pass through a public road on the land owned by the plaintiffs, E,F, and G, the part of "A" in the attached referring to attached 36, 37, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 41, 42, 32, 33, and 36, among the D land owned by the defendant, and the part of "A" in the attached referring to 212 square meters and the attached referring to 43, 44, 45, 46, 30, and 43 shall be connected in sequence to each of "A" and the part of "A" in attached referring to 42 square meters and referring to 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 56, 27, 57, 58, 60, 61, 662, 636, and 47.

B. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have the right to pass over the surrounding land as to each part of the instant vessel.

Nevertheless, the Defendant’s installation of electrical equipment in the part of “A” and “C” on the instant vessel and thus interferes with the passage of the Plaintiffs.

Therefore, the plaintiffs seek against the defendant the confirmation of the right to passage over surrounding land, the removal of the electrical wooden machine, and the prohibition of interference with traffic.

Judgment

The following facts and circumstances can be acknowledged according to the overall purport of the arguments by the Korea Land Information Corporation, as a result of the fact of recognition 1 above, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and 8, and the on-site verification by this court.

The evidence submitted by the defendant alone is found to be above.