1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the instant case is as follows: (a) the “before the instant construction work” under Section 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance; (b) the “this court” under Section 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance as the “former”; (c) the “entry route” under Section 9 Section 2 as the “Entry route”; (d) the “inward route” under Section 11 as the “entry route”; (c) the “in increased or decreased” under Section 4; (d) the “influent relationship” is deemed as the “influence”; and (e) the “influent relationship” under Section 7 is deemed as the “influence”; and (e) the “influentness” is deemed as the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for deletion of the “

[Plaintiff asserts that, based on the result of inquiry and reply to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (No. 13 evidence), the instant site constitutes a site adjoining to a dead-end road, and thus, it is unnecessary to secure the width of the road at least 6 meters. According to the above facts, the access road in this case constitutes a dead-end road because the edge part of the access road is obstructed, but the site in this case does not correspond to a site adjoining to a dead-end road (see attached Table 3). Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim in this case on this premise is without merit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim in this case should be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.