1. Of the instant lawsuit No. 2,198 square meters in Gangwon-gun D, the part of the instant lawsuit is indicated in attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 8, 7, 6, and 1.

1. On December 5, 2001, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land owned by the Defendant with respect to 2,198 square meters prior to D, Gangwon-do, Gangwon-do (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”).

On January 28, 2019, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of 1/2 shares out of 3,392 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”) of Gangseo-gun E, Gangwon-do, which is linked to the land owned by the Defendant.

The land owned by the plaintiffs can be credited only through the land owned by the defendant.

Of the land owned by the Defendant, the lower court, which was formed before the Plaintiffs acquired the ownership of the land owned by the Plaintiffs, is a passage without a package to which the Plaintiffs could access the land owned by the Plaintiffs. However, it is difficult to confirm the exact location and width of the passage route because it is covered by a grass as it is not currently used.

The defendant forms a farmer's house in the land owned by the remaining defendant except the land provided for above passage, and does not interfere with the part of the land that can pass the land owned by the plaintiffs.

The Defendant stated that the part of “A” connected in sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 8, 7, 6, and 1 of the attached reference map corresponding to the width of 1.5 meters among the part of the land owned by the Defendant, which was used as a passage from the past, should not interfere with the Plaintiffs in using the land as a passage for the passage of the Plaintiffs.

The land owned by the plaintiffs seems to have been neglected without long-term cultivation before the plaintiffs acquire ownership.

The Plaintiffs do not actually cultivate land after acquiring land ownership.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Results of on-site verification conducted by this court, results of survey and appraisal conducted by appraiser F, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In the case of confirmation of the claim for confirmation of the right to passage over surrounding land, there should be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and confirmation should be made.