1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 28, 2008, E and F divided the forest of 9,802 square meters into D forest of 5,909 square meters, 3,270 square meters of I forest of 3,270 square meters, and 623 square meters of C forest of 5,90 square meters, which were owned by Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City D (hereinafter referred to as “H Dong land”) into the land number. On August 11, 2014, E and F divided the forest of 951 square meters of forest of 4,90 square meters into J.

B. On June 25, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased shares of 25,985/5,00 of 4,958 square meters of D forest land from E and F, and the same year.

8.25. Completion of the registration of ownership transfer.

C. E and F are land of this case: on April 6, 2009, the land of this case is “not more than 639.2m2m2 square meters of C forest land to K.

The Defendant sold the instant land owned by K by public sale on August 16, 201, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 7, 201 of the same year after purchasing the instant land owned by K by public sale. [Ground] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 (including the land number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

statement, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The plaintiff asserted that E and F renounced the right to exclusive use and benefit by providing the land of this case as a road by dividing D land into a housing site. Since the defendant acquired the ownership of the land of this case with a well-known knowledge of such circumstance, the plaintiff asserts that he has a duty to express his consent to the construction and use of the road of this case.

3. In light of the judgment, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the owner of the instant land before the Defendant renounced his exclusive right to use and benefit from the instant land, and that the Defendant acquired the ownership of the instant land with the knowledge thereof, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 7 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, and 6, ① The land of this case was transferred to K five years prior to the Plaintiff’s purchase of D land, and the ownership was transferred to the defendant three years prior to the purchase of D land; ② The land of this case and D land are not specially managed as without trees until now, and are different from the road.