The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

In fact, on March 26, 2019, the Plaintiff was awarded a compulsory auction with respect to the area of 519 square meters and 100 square meters for a road in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si (hereinafter “each of the instant roads”).

Defendant Incorporated Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) purchased and owns Fran 1,499 square meters in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si on June 23, 2017, and Defendant C purchased and owns 1,306 square meters in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si and H 778 square meters in Kimpo-si on June 19, 2017.

The Defendants have used each of the roads of this case as a passage way to enter public roads until the closing date of pleadings.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's main point of claim is that the defendants, without title, pass through the road of this case owned by the plaintiff without title, as the plaintiff's main point of claim is that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 6, and the whole purport of the pleading, and therefore, the plaintiff's primary point of claim is that the prohibition of passage by the plaintiff's claim for exclusion of interference based on ownership, and if the defendants

Judgment

Unless there are special circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that a person who specifically succeeds to the ownership of land, the exclusive and exclusive use of which by the original owner and the exercise of the right to benefit is limited, through auction, sale, payment in substitutes, etc., to have acquired the ownership of such land, at least by allowing the circumstance that such restriction on use and profit is a burden, unless there are special circumstances. As such, such specific successor is prohibited from exercising the exclusive and exclusive right to benefit from such part of the land.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2016Da264556 Decided January 24, 2019, supra). In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the written evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul’s respective lands, including the road of this case, are equal to or lower than the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) on May 2, 201, when comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the written evidence No. 1 through 5.