1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

A. Attached 1 Map No. 20, 21, 21, among the 16,529 square meters of forest land B in Sju-si.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff owns C forest land of 14,716 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) in Innju-si, and the Defendant owns B forest land of 16,529 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant’s B land”) adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land adjacent to the said land.

B. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for confirmation of the right of passage over surrounding land, etc. and filed a lawsuit against the defendant for confirmation of the right of passage over surrounding land, etc., and the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive on the following grounds: (a) the attached drawing Nos. 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 53, 55, 6, 7, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 138, 139, 140, 39, 47, 49, 49, 50, 49, 50

(Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2010Da89078 Decided February 13, 2013, Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2013Na3298 Decided November 14, 2013, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Da3849 Decided April 30, 2014).

B. The defendant

b) around 2011, when the lawsuit under this subsection was in progress.

As in the same paragraph, the existing passage along which the right of passage over surrounding land has been confirmed and the defendant's part of the defendant's B's land located near the boundary line between the plaintiff's land B, and the concrete retaining wall was stored in the "bb" part 14 square meters (hereinafter "the land in this case") connected with the each point of 20, 21, 22, and 20 square meters in the attached Form 1 drawings, and a sloped up to the boundary line between the plaintiff's land C and the plaintiff's land.

B. The Plaintiff

By using the existing passage roads recognized as the right of passage over surrounding land such as paragraph (1) to enter the land of the plaintiff's C.

The land of this case must only pass. On the land of this case, the plaintiff was due to the retaining wall and slope surface installed by the defendant on the land of this case.

The plaintiff's land could not pass through the land through the existing passage of the port.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, entry and video of Gap's 1 through 5, Eul's 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), respectively;