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

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

1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s assertion

A. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Plaintiffs”) are owners of land and buildings in the land and buildings in the Gu/Si/Gu C market considerable of Cheongju-si, and the Defendant is the owner of the land indicated in the attached Table.

B. The C market had been formed as a commercial building by building a store on the land owned by the network D prior to 60 years, and developed the land and the store by selling them to the lessee.

At the time, land in the C market was established as a passage road to own and use a store as a franchise, and the road site on the passage road was provided free of charge for the business of each commercial building in the C market.

C. Since the Defendant also purchased a part of the land and buildings within the C market and offered the road site free of charge with the knowledge of such land-use relationship, blocking the passage by using the bed of the C market while allowing the free provision of the road site, the unauthorized extension of the building should be removed and restored to its original state.

2. The defendant's judgment on this safety defense is not in the position of seeking confirmation as the plaintiff (appointed party) is not in the position of seeking confirmation because the plaintiff (appointed party) is not in the position of seeking confirmation, and the land owned by the remaining designated parties is not used as a commercial building after being left alone due to a fire that occurred in 1987. The right to passage over surrounding land is recognized within the scope of use in accordance with the current usage law, and it is not determined as a passage way in preparation for future use (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da3343, 33440, Nov. 29, 1996).

According to the evidence evidence No. 10, the plaintiff acquired ownership of the land of Cheongju-si for the neighboring land around January 25, 2018, when the lawsuit of this case was pending, around January 25, 2018. The legal principles asserted by the defendant are about the matters to be considered in determining the scope of the right to passage over surrounding land, and only such circumstance alone, the benefit of this case itself.