1. The appeal filed by Defendant Incorporated Foundation B is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are borne by Defendant Incorporated Foundation B.

3. The first instance.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

A. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, including the determination of the newly submitted evidence by Defendant B at the trial of the court of first instance on the part of the 6th instance court's 15th and 19th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 20th of the 6th of the 6th of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the

2. The part used in the trial was "(the defendant B used the packaging road of this case from time to time by the residents living near the land of this case, so it is difficult to confirm that the packaging road of this case is not a road occupied and managed by the defendant B, but a road for public use, and thus, it is not sufficient to confirm the fact that the neighboring residents used the road of this case or the access road to the park of this case as the packaging road of this case or the park of this case for public use by the defendant B, because it is argued that the packaging road of this case is not a road occupied and managed by the defendant B, but a road for public use.

Rather, according to the evidence Nos. 28, H, the owner of the instant land, was aware of the fact that he/she asked to provide the instant land located at the entrance of the instant park cemetery on July 31, 1978 at Defendant B’s request. The instant land appears to have been provided as an access road for a park cemetery by H according to the above letter.

Therefore, in order for Defendant B to use it as an access road to the instant park cemetery, neighboring residents have opened the instant packaging road and as a book, etc.