1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 25, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of 3,078 square meters of the C orchard in Ansan-si (hereinafter “C land”) and owns C land until now.

B. On September 14, 2010, the Defendant acquired the ownership of the fourth parcel of real estate (hereinafter referred to as “the fourth parcel of this case” when referring to all the four parcels of real estate as indicated in the separate sheet, and referring only to the parcel number when referring only to the individual land) and owned the fourth parcel of this case until now, and is residing in a house on that ground.

C. The specific location of the land owned by the Plaintiff and the land owned by the Defendant for the instant four parcels is as indicated in the separate sheet (entry).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without any dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the result of on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Since March 25, 2004, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff leased C land to D and cultivated vessels at this point.

D In the land, the Plaintiff, as stated in C’s claim, passed through the road (Asan E road) using the passage of the part of the land for which the Plaintiff seeks confirmation of traffic right (hereinafter “instant passage”).

However, on September 14, 2010, the Defendant acquired the ownership of the instant fourth parcel of land and installed the steel gate in which the passage of the instant case is obstructed, and the purport of the claim is stated (hereinafter “the instant steel gate”), and resided therein.

As a result of the Defendant’s blocking the passage of the instant case, C’s land was abandoned as a master land without a passage leading to the road.

Plaintiff

D In order to set up a fruit farming house in C, a road with a width of at least 2 meters is needed to pass between the public road and C, and the passage of this case is located according to the boundary outside of the land of this case so as to minimize the defendant's damage or privacy infringement.

Considering that the passage of this case existed in the past, the Plaintiff is against the Defendant.