A. On February 10, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant land and/or the instant land by adding up the instant land and the instant land and the ownership of the land, 495 square meters and above ground buildings and 474 square meters in Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, and I, and the instant land (hereinafter “instant land”).

Of the land adjacent to the instant land, the building with the size of 662 square meters and above ground owned by Defendant C and D is jointly owned by Defendant C and D, G 231 square meters and above ground buildings are owned by Defendant C, and F 525 square meters and above are owned by Defendant B.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant dispute land”). Defendant B is living and living in the building constructed on the instant dispute land (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”).

The location of the land in this case and the land in dispute shall be as follows:

B. On February 2012, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant land and subsequently used the land on the part of the instant dispute (the part indicated as the “land on the instant road” among the land in order to enter the national highway for the purpose of having access to the instant land as a public road, which is indicated in the attached drawing No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 9, 100 in sequence, and 10, the land on the instant dispute (hereinafter “instant passage”) connected each point as a passage.

Defendant B, around April 15, 2016, has been using the instant road as the end for the building of this case by hedging the passage of this case, and planting landscaping stone and trees.

On October 5, 2016, Defendant B was convicted of a fine of KRW 3 million on the ground of the crime of obstruction of general traffic by causing damage to the traffic route used by residents, including the Plaintiff, for the traffic of the instant case and obstructing traffic flow.

(2016 High Court Decision 2016No1072) and the final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2018Do9086) against the above judgment were all dismissed.

C. The Defendant B closed the passage of this case, and the residents, including the Plaintiff, etc., adjacent to the passage of this case are on the passage of Ycheon-gun.