1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The status of the parties 1) Plaintiff A is the Plaintiff’s land G (hereinafter “instant G land”).

(2) The Plaintiff is the owner of H land (hereinafter “instant H land”) and the second floor housing on its ground. The Plaintiff is the owner of the third floor building (the first floor neighborhood living facilities, the second floor warehouse, and the third floor detached housing).

3) The Plaintiff C refers to the land I (hereinafter “instant I land”); and, in the event that each of the above lands owned by the Plaintiffs is referred to as “the Plaintiff’s land”, it refers to “the Plaintiff’s land.”

(4) The Defendant is the owner of the instant land.

B. The current status of the real estate owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants is 1) the instant G land, the instant H land, and the instant I land adjoin in sequence to the north of the instant land. 2) The instant land adjoins south to the roads J (hereinafter “J road”) of the Busan East-gu, Busan (hereinafter “J road”). The Plaintiffs’ land adjoin to the K road located on each Dong (hereinafter “K road”). The instant land and the Plaintiffs’ land are able to enter the L road via each of the above roads.

(3) The status of real estate owned by the plaintiffs and the defendant is as shown in the annexed cadastral map 2. [Grounds for recognition] The facts that there is no dispute, and evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including the number of pages), including the number of pages 1, 2, and 4 (including the number of pages).

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. At least 30 years, roads such as the indication of the attached Form 1, including the part of the dispute in this case alleged by the plaintiffs, have been used as the only road where the plaintiffs and their neighboring residents can pass by motor vehicles.

However, after acquiring the ownership of the land of this case, the Defendant installed the instant fence, and as a result, the width of the road, including the dispute portion of this case, was narrow from 4m to 13m to 5m 2m m 5m m.