1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons why the court should explain concerning the instant case by the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment in addition to the determination of the Defendant’s assertion emphasized by this court as stated in the following paragraph (2). Therefore, this Court shall accept it as is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant’s assertion asserts that there is another passage through which village residents can pass through a public road in addition to the instant land portion (hereinafter “other passage”).

However, since vehicles cannot pass through because the width of the road is narrow, the plaintiff's claim in this case results in preventing access to the village residents, so it constitutes abuse of rights.

(The defendant did not submit evidence in the trial by repeating the same argument as that of the first instance court concerning the waiver of the exclusive right to use the grounds of appeal, and the argument about the prescriptive acquisition of the traffic area, the special area and the right to passage over surrounding land was withdrawn from the preparatory document on February 4, 2020).

According to the following facts and circumstances, the evidence submitted at the first instance court, Gap evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 9 through 17 (including all of the numbers in the case of additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 25 through 31, and the overall purport of video and oral arguments, it is not sufficient to recognize the plaintiff's claim of this case as an abuse of rights on the ground that the evidence submitted by the defendant merely causes harm to others, causing damage to others, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff does not have any profit or it does not violate the social order objectively, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

1 The defendant asserts that vehicle traffic is impossible on other routes.

However, according to the descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 9 through 12, 14, and 15, other passage roads are one ton truck.