Defendant B (Counterclaim Plaintiff) indicated in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, on the part of the 294.2m2m2 in the Jeonsan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D (Counterclaim Defendant) with the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Determination as to the main claim

A. On June 10, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the transfer of ownership with respect to the land owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “land owned by the Plaintiff”). On June 10, 2014, the Plaintiff operates a string house on the land owned by the Plaintiff.

2) Defendant B is the owner of 294.2 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Yansan-gu, Jeonju-si, Jeonju-si, a neighboring land owned by the Plaintiff, and Defendant C owns 93.05 square meters of a detached house on the instant land.

3) The only passage from the land owned by the Plaintiff to the public road is the indication of the annexed drawing (b) part of the instant land (hereinafter “the instant land”).

4) Defendant C parked his own car (1,705m wide) on the part of the instant land (2,509m wide) and obstructed Plaintiff’s passage over the said part of the land (in the case of parking the said vehicle, it is difficult to pass along the land for the Plaintiff’s use in light of its width, etc.). [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, each entry of Party A’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the number) and the result of the on-site inspection conducted by this Court, the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. 1) According to the facts of the claim for confirmation of the right to passage over the surrounding land against Defendant B and the above recognition of the claim against Defendant C, the Plaintiff has the right to passage over the surrounding land owned by Defendant B, and the Defendant B is dissatisfied with this, so there is a benefit to seek confirmation, and the Plaintiff has a possibility that the Defendant C interfered with and could interfere with the passage of the Plaintiff’s land in this case, so it shall not interfere with the Plaintiff’s passage over the surrounding land.

2) Among the claims against Defendant B, there is no evidence to prove that Defendant B interfered with the Plaintiff’s passage of the part of the instant land and that it is likely to interfere with it in the future. This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.