1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are owners of 1/2 shares of each of the land G, H, I, F, and J (hereinafter “Plaintiffs’ land”). The Defendant is the owners of K, L, and D forest land adjacent to the Plaintiffs’ land (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) and 195 square meters of land adjacent to D forest land (hereinafter “instant passage”).

B. The above G and the above H land located between the plaintiffs' land and the defendant's land for the purpose of having access to a public road (hereinafter "the plaintiff's passage"). The passage of this case is a cement package of three meters wide (hereinafter "the plaintiff's passage"), and the passage of this case is located at the entrance of the above passage and the cement package, which entered the above passage from the road to the above passage.

C. The Defendant installed the iron gate, such as a photograph, at the entrance of the instant passage, so that the Plaintiffs could not enter the land and passage through the instant passage.

【Ground of recognition】 without any dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1 through 5, 2-1-2, 3-1 through 4-4, the result of on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' land is a franchise and needs to have access to the road, or excessive cost, without using the road. Thus, the plaintiffs are entitled to access to the surrounding land under Article 219 of the Civil Act on the road of this case.

In addition, the defendant's obstruction of traffic can not be allowed because it constitutes abuse of rights.

B. Nevertheless, the defendant constructed the above steel gate on the road of this case, and even though the plaintiffs requested the defendant to permit excavation in order to relocate the measuring instruments and water pipes laid underground along the road of this case to the plaintiffs' land, the defendant rejected the plaintiffs' entry and excavation of the road of this case. Thus, the defendant shall remove the above steel gate and shall not interfere with the plaintiffs' removal of the water supply measuring instruments and water pipes laid underground along the road of this case, and the removal of the water supply pipes and water pipes.