1. The appeal against the counterclaim by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is dismissed.

2. Expenses for an appeal against a counterclaim;

1. The appeal concerning the counterclaim against the defendant is partly accepted in the scope of the trial of this court, and the appeal against the judgment of the court prior to the remanding the judgment dismissing the appeal concerning the defendant's main lawsuit was filed by both the plaintiffs and the defendant. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the part against the plaintiffs as to the counterclaim (the claim against the plaintiff as to the confirmation of the right to claim a passage over the main land, the prohibition of the obstruction of the construction of the passage building, the removal of the steel removal, and the prohibition of the construction of the passage obstruction building) and dismissed the defendant's appeal. Thus, the part against the plaintiffs as to the main claim and the counterclaim is separately decided, and the scope of the trial of this court is limited to

2. Under the foundation facts, the following facts do not conflict between the parties, or the evidence Nos. 1, 2-1 to 12, 4-1 to 3, 7, 12-2, Gap evidence Nos. 14-1, 2, 18-1, 15, 19-3, Gap evidence Nos. 6-1 through 6, 8-1 to 5-12, Eul evidence Nos. 25-1 through 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 25-1 to 5, and Gap evidence Nos. 13-2, Gap evidence Nos. 14-2, 14-2, 18, 15, 19-3, and Eul evidence Nos. 6-1 through 11, and Eul evidence Nos. 5-1 to 5, and the result of on-site verification after returning to the court of first instance.

On November 18, 2002, the Defendant jointly purchased shares of 1,322.5/4,419 from L on the same day among the 4,420 square meters in Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do, J. In which he owned, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the same day. Of the above land, L Shares of 1,774/4,419 square meters were divided into M 1,774 square meters on the ground of the partition of co-owned property on January 22, 2003, and the Defendant and K shared 2,645 square meters in common (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Plaintiff E was in contact with the instant land in around 1994 when creating a electric housing complex on the 5,903 square meters, which was adjacent to the instant land, prior to the partition of the ownership, and constituted a severe slope.