Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. From around 1994, the Plaintiff owned the Plaintiff’s land of this case, which was 228 square meters (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s land”), E prior to 483 square meters, F prior to 347 square meters, G forest land 7 square meters, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of the transfer of ownership on the Defendant’s land of this case, the Defendant completed the registration of the transfer of ownership on June 26, 2017, Nam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1,160 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).

B. The Plaintiff’s land and the Defendant’s land are located as follows, and there is a building, such as the lower right photograph on the Plaintiff’s land.

E CD HHD

C. In the case of the Nam-gu, South-gu, Dong-gu, and the Plaintiff’s land and the instant land, and between the Defendant’s land in this case, there exist slopes and drainages, which correspond to the part (c) portion (c) which successively connects each point of which is indicated in the annexed drawing Nos. 1, 2, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 1.

(d)

At the time of this Court’s on-site inspection, it is difficult to pass from the Defendant’s land to the Plaintiff’s land on the following grounds: (a) it is difficult to pass through the road due to the lack of any portion repaired

In addition, there is a house owned by a third party on the ground of the south-dong H site in the case of the case, and there is an access road with a width of 5 10 cm for entry into a house from the village to the middle part of the above H land from the village to the village, but the above access road does not extend to the Plaintiff’s land.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Eul evidence No. 4, and the result of the on-site verification by this court, the result of the appraisal by the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. From the 1993s, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered the Plaintiff’s land through a 5m wide passage from the point of contribution to the village in which the livestock shed for raising salt was set up on the Plaintiff’s land, and a 5m wide of the width originally existed on the Defendant’s land.

However, the Defendant had already purchased the Defendant’s land in this case, which had already existed the existing passage, and damaged the existing passage from around 2019.

(1)