1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Seoul Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 347 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) and H 96 square meters owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) are located between the two co-owned land, and are adjacent to the instant road, which is a State-owned land.

B. The ditch of this case is connected to the Defendant’s land and the second co-owned land, and the first co-owned land of this case is connected to both the ditch of this case, the Defendant’s land, and the second co-owned land.

C. On the Plaintiff’s land, the Defendant owned each building on the Defendant’s land, and occupied and used the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, which connected to the Defendant’s land without permission, and received the disposition of indemnity, and purchased shares according to the ratio of occupied area of each land upon request for the sale of State property.

Accordingly, on April 10, 2015, the Plaintiff completed each registration of ownership transfer on 33/66 shares among the co-owned land of this case and 15/26 shares among the co-owned land of this case, and on 10/66 shares among the co-owned land of this case on September 17, 2015 and 0.16/26 shares among the co-owned land of this case on September 17, 2015.

The current status of use, such as the road and ditch of this case, and the first, second and second lands, are as shown in the attached Form 2 “current status of facilities” and the details of the entry.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's statements or images, Gap's statements or images, Eul's evidence of Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 14, 17, 18, and Eul's evidence of No. 6 through 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the claim for removal of the instant road, ditch part, steel gate, tent structure, etc. and the prohibition of interference with traffic

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant interferes with the Plaintiff’s passage by installing a steel tent and fence on the steel gate and the ditch of this case. Thus, the Defendant should not remove each of the above facilities and interfere with the Plaintiff’s passage through the said parts.

(b) attempt to pass through a judgment only on the ground that a land is in a state of offering to the general public for traffic.