1. In the order of priority among the real estate listed in the separate sheet, “inboard” connecting each point of the annexed sheet Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of a three-story detached housing building (hereinafter “instant building”) newly built around October 12, 2017 on the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C large 96 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and on its ground, and the Defendant is the owner of DNA road (hereinafter “instant road”) adjacent to the instant real estate, as shown in the attached Forms 1 and 2.

B. On the ground of the instant road, an urban gas supplier installed by the E-stock company is buried, and the landowner adjacent to the instant road installs a gas pipe connected to each of the relevant land in the relevant urban gas supply pipe to supply urban gas.

Before constructing the instant building, the old building on the instant land was also supplied with urban gas by the same method.

C. On January 9, 2019, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant, the owner of the instant road, to obtain urban gas supply by newly installing a gas pipe connected with urban gas supply pipes buried on the instant road after removing the said Gu building and newly constructing the instant building, and then seeking to obtain urban gas supply through the construction business operator’s consent to land use for the installation of the above gas pipe, but the Defendant rejected this.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and 9 (including virtual numbers), each fact inquiry result against E Co., Ltd. of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. As to the determination of the instant safety defense, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of the existence of gas pipes under Article 218 of the Civil Act on the part 3.3057 square meters inboard “A” (hereinafter “the instant dispute part”) connected with each point of Annex 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the instant roads to the Defendant, who is the owner of the instant land and is the owner of the instant land, who is the owner of the instant land. However, the Defendant did not have any legal title to use the said dispute portion without permission and there is no profit to seek such confirmation.