1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The net C owned 3,752 square meters of D orchard in Seopopoposi (hereinafter “instant land”) and died on March 19, 1985.

At the time of the deceased C’s death, the deceased E, Defendant F, and G were involved, but the deceased E completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the “property inheritance on March 1985, 1985,” which was the Defendant, one of his children, based on the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership of Real Estate (hereinafter “Special Measures Act”) on December 31, 1994.

B. The network H owned the I orchard in the vicinity of the instant land, and the network J owned the K orchard in Seopopo City.

In around 1968, the Network H and the Network J purchased 132 square meters (hereinafter “this case’s access roads”) out of the land of this case from Dong C and used the same as the access to the said K K orchard and I orchard.

C. On November 22, 1985, the Plaintiff succeeded to the right of the deceased H’s share among the Plaintiff’s access roads to the I orchard and the instant orchard, Seopo-si, Seopo-si.

The Defendant, on August 13, 2009, entered the instant land into a road, and received 33,000 won per square meter as compensation for the acquisition of public land by consultation from Jeju Special Self-Governing Province.

【Ground for Recognition】 The parties to the case do not have any dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2-1 through 6, 4, 5 through 7-1, 3, 10, 11 of each evidence, and the fact-finding results of the court's inquiry of the return to the audience, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant’s decision as to the cause of the claim, along with the ownership of the instant land from the deceased C, was not able to implement the process of ownership transfer registration to the deceased H and the deceased J as to the 1/2 share of the access road of this case, and there is no dispute between the parties. According to the above fact-finding, the obligation to implement the procedure of ownership transfer registration was impossible as the land of this case was expropriated through consultation on August 13, 2009.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the plaintiff, who is the heir of the deceased H, is the successor of the deceased C.