1. Of the land indicated in the attached Table 2’s list of real estate, the Defendant indicated in the attached Form 3’s “design” on the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of each land indicated in the attached Table 1’s list of real estate (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”), and the Defendant is the owner of each land indicated in the attached Table 2’s list of real estate (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).

B. The Plaintiff’s land and the Defendant’s land are adjoining land. Of the Defendant’s land, the land indicated in paragraph (2) of “Real Estate List” in attached Form 2, among the Plaintiff’s land, is abutting on the north-westing boundary line of the land indicated in attached Form 1 “List of Real Estate” paragraph (1) of the Plaintiff’s land and the Seo-gu Northern-gu Seoul Metropolitan City D land owned by C and other persons, respectively.

C. Of the Defendant’s land, there is a passage in which the width leading to a contribution is approximately two meters on the same side of the land indicated in [Attachment 2] List 1 and 2, and the land listed in [Attachment 2] paragraph (3) of the same List is part of the above passage.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant passage”) D.

The Plaintiff used the instant passage as an access road to the Plaintiff’s land. From April 22, 2016, the Defendant planted trees on the instant passage from around April 2, 2016, installed a wall, and brought about a tree wave, rock rocks, block, hack pipe, etc., obstructing the Plaintiff’s passage to the instant passage.

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional disposition against the Defendant to remove or remove the aforementioned fences and wooden lifts, etc., and the Plaintiff’s family members filed an application with the Plaintiff for provisional disposition claiming that the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s family members not obstruct the use of the roads connected to the passage of the instant passage as the passage of the vehicle, etc. (this Court Decision 2016Kahap1087). On August 18, 2016, the court rendered a decision that “the Defendant removed or removed the above fences and wooden lifts, etc., within three days from the date of delivery of the decision, and that “the Plaintiff shall not interfere with the use of the passage of the instant case as the passage of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s family members as

(hereinafter referred to as “instant provisional disposition order”)