1. The defendant's appraisal of the attached sheet No. 5, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 59, 58, 57, and 55 of the attached sheet No. 1 to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is the owner of Gangseo-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, 769 square meters, 614 square meters prior to D, and 5537 square meters prior to E (hereinafter “instant land”). The Plaintiff is the owner of the Plaintiff’s land located adjacent to the instant land, which is the 215 square meters in Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, and 228 square meters prior to G (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”).

H I J K L L M NO P

B. Each land owned by the Plaintiff must pass through each land owned by the Plaintiff in order to enter into a public road from each land owned by the Plaintiff as a blind land surrounded by adjoining land.

C. Of the instant land, the Defendant owned a single-story house (hereinafter “Defendant-owned building”) on the ground of the Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Seoul and Q, living together with the instant land by spreading Seoul and Q, and cultivated d, E and the shoulder, etc. from each land adjacent to the instant land, which is adjoining land owned by the Defendant, E and the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 3, images of Gap 4 to 6, the result of the verification by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The following circumstances are revealed by comprehensively taking into account the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim and the purport of the entire arguments in each of the above evidences. In other words, the defendant used the part of the right to access to the land owned by the plaintiff as a passage for farming, such as marking of the attached drawing(s) in order to enter the land owned by the plaintiff, E, and RR land adjacent to the plaintiff's land, whether the part of the part(s) (vii), and (c) are gravel, etc. (hereinafter "the part of the right to access to the land of this case"), and even if the defendant does not permanently reside in the land of this case and is going through the road of this case with a width of up to 3 meters, it seems that the defendant would not cause a significant damage to the defendant. The majority of the passage roads of this case are located at the last part of the land owned by the defendant, and it seems not to seriously impede the use of the land owned by the defendant.