1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the 3,302 square meters prior to C in permanent residence, each point of Attached Table 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 1.

Facts of recognition

The following facts may be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the purport of the whole pleadings is added to the entries in Gap evidence 1 through 4, and Eul evidence 1 through 7:

E- 1,090 square meters of forest land (hereinafter “instant forest land”) is not adjacent to the public service, and the same is divided into G forest land of 3,240 square meters (hereinafter “G land”) and North Korea, which were owned by H, and C, which were owned by H, 302 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). H owns 969 square meters of forest land (hereinafter “I land”) adjacent to the same side of the instant land, and the specific status is as shown in attached Form 2.

D, H, and F, around 194, set up a passage road, approximately 25 meters in length and approximately 2.5 meters in width, connecting each point of Annex 3 drawings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1, to the extent that the traffic of the horse is possible, in order to form a farm in each of the above lands owned by them (hereinafter “instant farm road”).

On January 6, 2003, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the forest of this case on the grounds of sale, and used the farm road of this case when entering the forest of this case.

Around March 17, 2009, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale of the instant land and I land, and J completed the registration of ownership transfer based on inheritance on G land around April 8, 2013.

On May 2012, the Plaintiff extended the instant farm road, the width of which is narrow, to approximately 2.3 meters, and used the instant farm road for the operation of the orchard in the instant forest.

During the dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the use of the farm road of this case, on April 2013, the Defendant opened the scope of the farm road of this case at least 0.9m and 1.5m0m, using the cryp cryp gun around the middle of 2013.

In general traffic obstruction, the defendant interfered with the traffic of the farm road of this case so that the farming machine of this case can not move.