1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 23, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the land listed in attached Form I List 1 (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Defendants are co-owners of each land listed in [Attachment I] List 2 and 3 (hereinafter “instant land”).

As to the land of this case 2 and 3, Defendant E acquired 3/6 shares on November 7, 2007, respectively, and Defendant B, C, and D acquired shares on July 8, 2013.

Defendant D and E are children of Defendant C.

C. From June 13, 2014 to June 15, 2014, the Defendants installed cement block fences (the height of 1.5 meters, 13.82 meters in length, 3.41 meters in width; hereinafter “instant fence”) in the order of each of the instant lands connected each of the points in Appendix II 1, 2, 3, and 4.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3 and 6 evidence (including paper numbers), the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the result of the appraiser F's appraisal (including the result of supplementary appraisal), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) is that neighboring residents, including the Plaintiff, have used the instant land 2 and 3 for a long time, and the Defendants were no longer able to use the instant land 2 and 3 as their meritorious services.

Therefore, the Defendants confirmed that they had the right of passage over surrounding land regarding ① part of 46.6 square meters on board (hereinafter “the instant portion”) which connects the Plaintiff with each point of the attached Form II drawings 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1, and that they had the right of passage over surrounding land. The installation of the instant fence constitutes an abuse of rights and thus removal, and the Plaintiff shall not install any structure that obstructs the passage of the instant portion in the future.

(2) As above, Defendant B and C infringed the Plaintiff’s right to passage over surrounding land, and installed the fence of this case by breaking the Plaintiff’s land-owned land. The current state of the building on the ground of the instant land was also destroyed, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s personal information.