1. On the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)

A. Of the 8,529 square meters prior to C at the time of residence, an appraisal in the attached Form No. 8,9,10,85,39,40,41, 83, 82, among the 8,529 square meters prior to C.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) On June 24, 1991, the Plaintiff is a 1,544 square meters prior to H at the time of residence on June 24, 1991 (hereinafter “H land”).

(2) The Defendants are co-owners who completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to their shares on May 19, 2014 and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each 1/4 shares on June 11, 2014.

B. The location of each of the above lands shall be as shown in the annexed cadastral map.

The portion indicated as “I” in the cadastral map is a meritorious service (hereinafter referred to as “public service”).

C. On October 13, 2015, the date of the on-site inspection by this Court, the passage to a public road from H land as of October 13, 2015 (hereinafter “instant passage”) is on the ground part of D and C’s land. The specific scope is as set out in paragraph (1) of this Article.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 11 (including Serial numbers if any) and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 8 and images, the result of the on-site verification by this court, the result of the appraiser J’s appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The right to passage over surrounding land under Article 219 of the Civil Act, which determines the cause of the claim, is recognized in a case where the owner of the surrounding land has no passage between a certain piece of land and a public road, and the use of the surrounding land is not possible without passing over or passing over the surrounding land, as well as in a case where the owner of the surrounding

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da43580 delivered on September 29, 195, etc.). In this case, in full view of the basic facts and the purport of the entire arguments in each of the above evidence, it is clear that the instant dispute has been used as access to the public service prior to the occurrence of the dispute, inasmuch as: (a) access to the H land owned by the Plaintiff was made by the Plaintiff through a public road; and (b) the passage route is clearly formed by the higher ground compared to other land when the land appears on the ground.