1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 11, 2013, the Plaintiff (i) purchased the land ownership relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”) with the land size of 9637 square meters and 6624 square meters of land in the process of voluntary auction (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”).

On the other hand, the land owned by the plaintiff is not connected to the contribution.

(2) The Defendant is the owner of the land adjacent to the land owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land,” and the location of the land owned by the Plaintiff is the same as that of the relevant project site drawings), and the land owned by the Defendant is adjacent to the contribution.

With respect to the land listed in the attached Table 1 among the land owned by the defendant, the defendant concludes a loan contract with a lender, and the present lender occupies and uses the above land.

B. (1) The Plaintiff’s plan and implementation details of the Plaintiff’s project to build a “Embage farm” (hereinafter “Embage farm”) including a memorial hall, parking lot, woodland, convenience facilities, etc. on the Plaintiff’s land, began to conduct the project. The Plaintiff’s plan and implementation details of the project to build the “Embage farm” (hereinafter “the instant woodland”). However, it was necessary to secure the access road according to the relevant statutes

(2) On January 20, 2014, the Plaintiff revealed the instant woodland creation plan to the Defendant and applied for temporary use of the land owned by the Defendant for the establishment of access roads. However, on January 24, 2014, the Plaintiff responded to the purport that “I will not lend the land because, in the event that the State-owned land is opened as an access road on the State-owned land, its use is restricted so that it can continue to be used for the same purpose, it would interfere with the exercise of the State’s ownership, future administration and use.”

(3) After that, on February 21, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for the conclusion of a loan contract on the land owned by the Defendant for the installation of the instant woodland on the land owned by the Plaintiff with the Sungsung City Mayor.