1. The Defendants are not allowed to pass through the “bbbb” portion indicated in the attached drawing among the area of 1,567 square meters in the area of 1,567 square meters in the Chungcheongnam-

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 27, 1991, the Plaintiff purchased 1,567 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on April 1, 1991.

B. Of the instant land, the attached drawing indication b and div (the total area of the area of the divist, is 355 square meters, and the Plaintiff, upon filing the instant lawsuit, sought prohibition of passage on the part of the divist, which was subject to prohibition of passage on the part of the divist, but was reduced to seek prohibition of passage only on the part of the divist, which was subject to prohibition of passage on the part of the divist.) has been used as a passage from before the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant land to E and F

The Defendants, as the heads of E and F Village adjacent to the instant land, are passing through the instant passage.

At the time of the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff removed concrete packaging on the surface of the instant passage and planted crops.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 12 (including each number), witness G and H testimony, the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is the owner of the land where the passage of this case is located and can seek exclusion from the disturbance. The defendants use the passage of this case as the passage and interfere with the exercise of the plaintiff's ownership. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendants are obliged not to pass the passage of this case out of the land of this case upon the plaintiff's request.

B. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for the prohibition of passage to the passage of this case constitutes an abuse of rights, in light of the circumstances where the passage of this case was used as a passage from the past. 2) The exercise of the right is subjectively to cause pain to the other party and to inflict damage on the other party.