1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 11, 2014, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer with 1/2 shares as to FY 582 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiffs’ land”) each, and owned the said land.

B. During the period from August 22, 2016 to August 23, 2017, the Defendants acquired the Defendants’ land shares adjacent to the Plaintiffs’ land, and currently owned 3/5 shares and 2/5 shares by Defendant E.

C. The Plaintiffs cultivated crops on the land of the Plaintiffs and used the instant dispute portion for the passage of agricultural machinery, etc. The Defendants, around September 2017, installed a steel gate at the entrance of the instant dispute part and corrected it, and set up a fence around it to prevent the Plaintiffs from entering.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entries and videos of Gap's Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

A. The part of the dispute in this case asserted by the plaintiffs was used as a passage from before the plaintiffs purchased the plaintiffs' land to their meritorious services by the former owners of the plaintiffs' land and neighboring residents. After purchasing the plaintiffs' land, the plaintiffs used the part of the dispute in this case to pass through the above part of the dispute.

However, from September 2017, the Defendants installed a gate at the entrance of the Defendants’ land from around September 2017, and corrected it, installed a fence around the entrance, or obstructed the passage of the Plaintiffs by means of planting the gate on the said dispute.

The plaintiffs are not allowed to enter the land of the plaintiffs without going through the part of the dispute in this case in order to establish a farm building on the land of the plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiffs sought confirmation against the defendants that they have the right to passage over surrounding land as stipulated in Article 219 of the Civil Act. On the premise of this confirmation, the prohibition of acts against the defendants to obstruct the exercise of the plaintiff's right to passage and the entrance of iron systems as planted in the above dispute.