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

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

1. Around 2002, the Defendant: (a) executed the Construction Work on the Cro-ro Packaging (hereinafter “Cro-ro Packaging”); and (b) accepted approximately KRW 76 square meters (23 square meters) out of the 863 square meters, which is the land owned by the Plaintiff, as a road site without the Plaintiff’s consent to use the land.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff 2,300,000 won = (100,000 won per square x 23) for land expropriation costs.

In addition, due to the confirmation construction of the farm road in this case, a sudden slope was formed on the boundary of the farm road and the land B, and the Plaintiff was unable to enter the land B and the land owned by the Plaintiff, which was owned by the Plaintiff, 119 square meters prior to that.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 23,760,000 ( KRW 10,000 per square x 297 square x 8 years). Moreover, the Defendant is also obligated to establish an access road to the land owned by the Plaintiff from the above farm road with the length of 3.6 meters and the width of 1.8 meters.

2. First of all, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant accepted part of the Plaintiff’s land B owned by the Plaintiff as a soil site, and rather, according to the statements in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, the above farm road of the Plaintiff’s assertion only passed through land of G, E, and F, and the land owned by the Plaintiff is not included in the above farm road. Thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

Next, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the farming company, which was possible prior to the construction of the farm road in this case, has become impossible due to the substantial aggravation of accessibility from the farm road to the land B due to the construction of the agricultural road in this case by only the statement of Gap evidence No. 4 with regard to the claim for the compensation for farming loss, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

Finally, access roads are set up.