1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party.

1. Factual basis

A. On June 21, 2013, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of trading around each time with respect to 2,089 square meters in Geumcheon-gu, Busan on June 21, 2013, with respect to 1,002 square meters in H on January 3, 2013, the Appointer E completed the registration of transfer on the ground of trading.

(2) On October 7, 2014, Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) completed each registration of ownership transfer as to the portion of 1818/9124 square meters out of D forest land 9,124 square meters (hereinafter “instant forest land”) located in Geumcheon-gu Busan (hereinafter “instant forest”), and on December 26, 2014, as to the portion of 3307/9124 out of the said forest land (the total shares of Defendant C), and Defendant C is the representative of Defendant C.

B. As the Plaintiff et al. used the part of the forest land in this case, which is the boundary between the land owned by the Plaintiff et al. as a passage to his own land, the Defendants installed a wire-conditioning network, etc. to prevent the passage of the Plaintiff et al., Defendant B was indicted for a general traffic obstruction (Seoul District Court Decision 2015Da6781) and thus, Defendant B was finally convicted on February 18, 2016, and was prosecuted for the same crime (Seoul District Court Decision 2016Da6300) and filed an appeal after being convicted of the same offense (Seoul District Court Decision 2016Da6300).

C. Meanwhile, on June 1, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on shares 165/9124 out of the instant forest land.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence 1-1 to Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the plaintiff's primary claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that among the instant forest land, the Plaintiff’s right to passage was illegally infringed on the Plaintiff’s right to passage by installing a wire network, etc. on the said passage, and that the Plaintiff’s right to passage was set up on the 300 square meters away from each point of the attached drawing Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 1.