All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 10, 2018, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the 1346 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) prior to Ulsan-gun B (hereinafter “B”) in Ulsan-gun (hereinafter “B”), and is growing a house in the Plaintiff’s land.

B. Each real estate listed in [Attachment 1] list (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) is owned by the Defendant, and the land of the Plaintiff and the location of the Defendant’s land are indicated in [Attachment 2] drawings.

C. The Plaintiff requested the head of the Yeongdeungpo National Land Management Office of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (attached Form 3) to connect the land owned by the Defendant between the national highway D and the Plaintiff’s land to the access to the agricultural use of land, such as the drawing.

However, on September 12, 2018, the head of the Jinyoung National Land Management Office notified the Plaintiff that permission for connection is not possible in accordance with the Regulations on Connection between Roads and other Facilities.

Plaintiff

Land is a blind land without a passage to the public road, and a 1283m2 adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land is owned by G.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations by the parties and the determination thereof

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff is entitled to pass along the Defendant’s land for the purpose of cultivating crops on the Plaintiff’s land, with respect to the Defendant’s land (attached Form 2), which is five meters wide, connected in each point of (a) through (22), and (1) the Plaintiff’s right to pass along the instant land (hereinafter “the instant land part”), and seek a prohibition of interfering with passage to the instant land portion.

As to this, the defendant does not restrict or interfere with the use of the plaintiff as to the part of the land of this case, so the plaintiff's claim for confirmation shall be dismissed as there is no benefit of confirmation, and there is benefit of family confirmation.

However, the right to passage over the surrounding land is not recognized.