1. The part concerning the confirmation of traffic rights in the judgment of the court of first instance, which falls under any of the following subparagraphs, shall be lost.

1. Presumed factual basis

A. On July 1, 2004, the Plaintiff purchased D forest land 2,162 square meters (hereinafter “D land before division”) from G before the subdivision, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 23, 2004. The said land was divided into KRW 927 square meters in the original city, Seoul Special Self-Governing Province, and KRW 931 square meters in the E forest land (the land category was changed to the site on December 19, 2013), and KRW 304 square meters in the F forest land.

(hereinafter referred to as “D land,” “E land,” and “F land”; (b)

On November 16, 2015, the Defendant purchased each of the 1,453 square meters of H forest and 1,453 square meters of H forest and 1,453 square meters of land (hereinafter “instant land”) from other land owners in the Seoul Special Self-Governing City, as well as 567 square meters of land and 567 square meters of land, 538 square meters of I forest, 660 square meters of J forest, 660 square meters of K forest, 321 square meters of L forest and 361 square meters of land, respectively.

(hereinafter referred to as “C before annexation” in total of the above seven parcels of land, including the instant parcels of land.

On April 7, 2016, the Defendant: (a) incorporated the land of seven parcels purchased as above into C Forest 4,560 square meters (hereinafter “C land”); and (b) newly constructed an automobile maintenance factory (hereinafter “instant factory”) on the following grounds: (c) the land purchased as above was incorporated into C Forest 4,560 square meters (hereinafter “C land”).

On January 4, 2018, the Plaintiff sold 890,000,000 pieces of land, other than D land, to R, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 9, 2018.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9, 20, 21 (including branch numbers for those with serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for confirmation of traffic right

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that, at the time of selling the Plaintiff’s land that was divided before subdivision, G packaging the instant land and the 178mm2 and O road that connects the 215m2 to the Plaintiff at the time of original city (hereinafter “instant agreement”). The Plaintiff’s assertion that, at the time of selling the Plaintiff’s land before subdivision, the Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant land,

On June 7, 2013, the land of this case is a road with the consent of land use.