2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 3,445 square meters in Guri-si, Guri-si, E miscellaneous land, 1,186 square meters in E miscellaneous land, and 272 square meters in F miscellaneous land, and part of the above land was used as farmland.

B. From September 5, 2005 to May 9, 2007, the Defendant continued the extension of the access road to G riverside North Korea, and due to the said construction, the Defendant’s access road to the drain pumps operated by the Defendant was closed.

C. Accordingly, the agreement was reached between the Defendant and the owner of the land, including the Plaintiff, to contribute part of the land to the Defendant as a road on the condition that the Defendant packs the farm road on which the non-packaged farmland was packed.

According to this consultation, the Plaintiff decided to contribute 270 square meters among the 3,445 square meters in Gui-si, Gui-si, the Plaintiff owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “1 donated land”), 1,186 square meters in E miscellaneous land (hereinafter “2 donated land”), and 272 square meters in F miscellaneous land (hereinafter “3 donated land”); and the “3 donated land”; on November 6, 2006, the Plaintiff agreed to contribute the entire donated land to H; on February 26, 2007, the first donated land of this case, which is the land to be donated, was divided into H; and each ownership transfer registration was completed under the Defendant’s name on February 26, 2007; thereafter, the aforementioned divided land and the donated land of this case were converted to B on December 1, 2007, and both divided land and the donated land of this case were converted to B on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 1, 2, 3, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, witness J and K's testimony, each part of witness J and K's testimony, the result of on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The defendant, in the course of the extension of the G river basin, is likely to result in the closure of the access road to the drainage pumps and the access road to the defendant's operation due to the above expansion work, and the plaintiff, who owned the non- packing farming road, has the access road to the above drainage pumps.