1. The claim of this case is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Nonparty 270/2423 of the ownership of Non-Party deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”) (the ownership transfer of September 26, 1967) acquired co-ownership shares on the ground of sale as of July 18, 1985, with respect to 270/2423 square meters of land D, Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “the land before the instant partition”). On August 23, 2000, Nonparty acquired co-ownership shares of 1041/2423 on the ground of the consultation acquisition of public land.

B. The land prior to the instant subdivision was divided into common property as of August 23, 200, and was owned jointly by the deceased, and the land was owned solely by the Republic of Korea (the Ministry of National Defense: the Ministry of National Defense) and the E Forest Land was owned by the deceased.

Since then, on November 13, 2001, land of 112 square meters in the above E forest land was subject to registration conversion into 1092 square meters in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant land”); and on November 23, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired land due to inheritance due to an agreement division.

C. In around 1969, the Deceased provided the instant land as a passage to the instant land for the purpose of a building permit, etc. when selling each of the instant land partitioned into a F 321 square meters, G 307 square meters, H (Gu I), H (Gu I), J (Gu K), G (Gu K), G 334 square meters, Lbu 317 square meters, N (Gu M), N (Gu M), 651 square meters, P (Gu P (Gu Q) large 314 square meters, etc.

(hereinafter referred to as “each site adjacent to the instant case”). D.

Although the instant land does not fall under a road planning facility (road), the Defendant sent a public notice to the effect that, at the request of residents around September 2001, the Defendant packaged the instant land, and installed a ice sewerage system around the date, and that, at the welfare site site visit in 2017, “the need for maintenance exists due to the aging of the asphalt package,” the Plaintiff requested the approval of land use to implement road maintenance on November 3, 2017.”

[Ground of recognition] There is no dispute.