A. The Plaintiff related to the parties is the owner of the share of 440/475 square meters in Daegu Northern-gu D, Daegu-gu (the Plaintiff’s share of 35/475 square meters is Nonparty E, the Plaintiff’s living together) and the above above ground wood farm and 21 square meters in a single-story housing, and the Defendant is the owner of C large 301 square meters and 35 square meters in a single-story housing and 35 square meters in a single-story housing and 21 square meters in a single-story housing.

B. The Plaintiff’s right of passage and right of prohibition of passage on surrounding land 1) Da-gu, Daegu Northern-gu (hereinafter “instant land”) 314 square meters

In the meantime, the owner of the instant land and its ground buildings are surrounded by each land of F, G, H, I, J, and C. In the meantime, the owner of the instant land and its ground buildings owned by the Defendant in the order of each point of No. 1,2,15,14,13, and 1 in the attached Form No. 1,2,15,14,13, and 5 square meters in the ship’s “b” portion (hereinafter “b” in the instant case”).

2) The Defendant removed the existing building in order to construct a new building on the land of 301 square meters above C, and conducted a land survey, and unilaterally prevented the Plaintiff from using the land in the instant dispute, which was used as the only passage. The instant land and the land used as the passage for more than 100 years by the owners of the instant land and the land used as the passage.

3. The right of passage over surrounding land as stipulated in Article 219 of the Civil Act is recognized for the public interest, which is the use of land without a passage necessary for its use, even if the owner of the land is damaged, and as long as the land in this case cannot enter the public interest without using the land in this case as the right of passage, the defendant is obliged to allow the passage of the plaintiff.

I have the honor to this effect.

C. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff has reached the claim of this case to seek the same judgment as the amended purport of the claim.

2. In the case of this case: