1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is, in addition to the addition as follows.

Inasmuch as the Defendant recognized the Plaintiff’s right to passage over the land surrounding the claim at the appellate court of this case and no longer interfered with the Plaintiff’s passage over the said land, the Plaintiff asserts that there is no interest in seeking confirmation of the Plaintiff’s right to passage over the surrounding land. The Defendant in the confirmation lawsuit is a person likely to cause anxiety in the Plaintiff’s legal status by dispute over the Plaintiff’s right or legal relation, and there is a benefit in confirmation against such Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da1420, Dec. 10, 1991; 96Da11747, Oct. 16, 197; 96Da11747, Oct. 16, 1997). Therefore, if the parties concerned over the right to passage over the surrounding land, barring any legal uncertainty, the Defendant’s right to passage over the surrounding land cannot be asserted in the appellate court, barring any special circumstance, to the effect that the Defendant did not have any interest in confirmation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da1314, supra).

2. Thus, the plaintiff's claim on the principal lawsuit must be accepted as reasonable.

The judgment of the court of first instance is the same.