1. It is confirmed that the plaintiffs have a right to passage over surrounding land with a lot of no less than 146 square meters prior to C in Isan-si.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. The land owned by the Plaintiff A is the land of which the Plaintiff owned 1,597 square meters and the E preceding 5,028 square meters in Yasan-si, Yasan-si. The land owned by the Plaintiff 6,325 square meters in F forest land in Yasan-si (hereinafter “Plaintiffs’ land”) and the land owned by the Defendant is 146 square meters in Yasan-si, Yasan-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Plaintiffs set up a farming house on the land of the Plaintiffs, and the Defendant leased the instant land to the principal owner (H Co., Ltd.) who operates a golf course, and H Co., Ltd uses the instant land as a passage connecting the instant land to a contribution and a golf course.

C. The plaintiffs' land is likely to prevent all sides by G golf courses, and access to the land of this case only through the above passage passage installed by H stock company on the ground of the land of this case.

Although there is a road according to the boundary of the plaintiffs' land in the cadastral map, there is no road that can be used actually.

[Based on Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 7-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 8-1 through 6, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, and Eul evidence 3-2, the result of on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim of this case

A. Regarding the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking confirmation of the right to passage over the instant land, the facts and evidence revealed earlier are as follows: (a) it is possible to access the Plaintiff’s land to a public road only through a passage connected to a G golf course, etc. on the ground of the instant land, etc.; and (b) it appears that the method of access through the above passage is the most appropriate way. Therefore, the Plaintiff’

(H Co., Ltd. currently occupies the instant land and may restrict the Plaintiffs’ passage at any time, and the Defendant is in the position to guarantee the Plaintiffs’ passage right as the owner of the instant land, and thus, has the benefit of confirmation.

However, the plaintiff.