2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The plaintiff A is the owner of the land and the ground building E in ASEAN.

Plaintiff

B is the owner of F-site and above-ground buildings.

Around June 19, 1972, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to D 195 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) of the same Ri, other than the instant land, as each time index.

B. The instant land exists between E land owned by the Plaintiffs and G road with a contribution to F land and G road.

The Plaintiffs have used as a road the part (A) of 14.98 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant passage”) connected to the I road, J ditch, and the land in this case, which are linked in sequence to each point of the attached Table 1 No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the land in this case, in order to enter into the H road, which is located in front of each owned land, as a G road.

H Roads, G roads, and the passage roads in this case were all the Aspact Road Packing works.

C. On May 14, 2017, the Defendant removed the packaging of the road of the instant land on or around May 14, 2017, and set up a hack pole or wire network at the edge of the instant land, constructed a fence, and cultivated crops within the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiffs' land was naturally formed since before 1972 and used as a passage for neighboring residents.

Since then, the concrete packaging construction has been carried out at the time of the Saemaul Project and has been continuously used for the passage of the general public.

around 2016, Asan City has maintained and managed the roads established on the instant land, such as the implementation of sewage culvert rearrangement works, etc. on the instant land, and designated and managed the surrounding land, including the instant land, as a planned site by urban planning decision.

The passage of this case is owned by the plaintiffs.