1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to the instant case is as follows: “Around August 20, 2014, the Daejeon District Court’s Budget Office (Seoul District Court Budget Office) received completion inspection and completed the registration of preservation of ownership as of August 20, 2014,” and the following determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion in the trial is identical to the ground for the judgment of the first instance, except for addition to the corresponding part of the judgment, thereby admitting it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the land in this case was used as a concrete package from around 1992 to the former owner of the land in this case, and that since the plaintiff succeeded to it and acquired the traffic area, the plaintiff sought the prohibition of passage obstruction by the defendants. Thus, the provisions of Article 245 of the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis only to the case where the right of passage continues and express, since the owner of the land in this case continues to use the land in this case as a concrete package, it can be recognized the prescriptive acquisition only when the objective situation where the owner of the land in this case installs a road on the dominant estate and uses the servient estate continues to exist for the period stipulated in Article 245

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Plaintiff’s right to use the instant land as a passage through the land owned by the Plaintiff or H cannot be deemed to have been acquired by prescription, on the ground that there is no evidence to recognize that the Plaintiff or H established the instant land as a passage through the land owned by him/her, and that the Plaintiff acquired the right to use the land as a passage through the land owned by him/her. In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s right to use the land as a passage through the health zone and the Plaintiff freely passes the instant land until now, and the Defendants did not express their intent to obstruct passage and act. As seen earlier, according to the overall evidence and the purport of oral argument as seen earlier, the Plaintiff merely used the instant land as a passage through the land and cannot be deemed to have acquired the right to use the land as a passage through the land owned by himself/herself.