1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant D completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 26, 2007 with respect to the land E-1247 square meters of forest land (hereinafter “instant land”) and F forest land 9438 square meters in Namyang-si, Nam-si.

B. The instant land and F land were divided into the land of F, H, I, J, K, K, M, M, N,O, P, Q, and R on June 2, 2005 from the area of G 20529 square meters in Namyang-si, Nam-si.

C. Defendant D made the instant land as an access road to the said land.

The F, H, I, J, N, andO projects to build and sell farm housing on each of the lands divided as described in the paragraph. D.

Meanwhile, on July 4, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with the maximum debt amount of KRW 80,000,000,000 for the instant land. On the other hand, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction with the Jung-gu District Court S. based on the aforementioned right to collateral security, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 21, 2008 upon the successful bid of the instant land during

E. Defendant B is the owner of T and 2 lots and above-ground buildings in Namyang-si, and Defendant C is the owner of U and above-ground buildings, and Defendant D is the owner of F, etc.

F. The land of this case is currently being used as the passage of the Defendants and neighboring residents since before the Plaintiff acquired ownership in the currently packed state, and is the only passage for entry into each land owned by the Defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 8, Gap evidence 22, Eul evidence 1 through Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 9 through Eul evidence 11 (including partial numbers), witness witness testimony, each field inspection result of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendants, without any legal ground, occupied and used the land of this case, which is owned by the plaintiff, as a passage through the road, obtained benefits equivalent to the rent and thereby suffered damages equivalent to the same amount from the plaintiff.