1. The defendant connects each point of the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 9, 8, 7, and 1 among the 347 square meters of land B in Gwangju-si.

Basic Facts

- The Defendant acquired ownership of 347 square meters among 8,826 square meters of C forest land in Gwangju-si on August 22, 1988, and during that process, divided the said C forest land into C forest land 8,479 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff forest”) and B forest land 347 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant forest”) in Gwangju-si.

- The Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the Plaintiff’s forest land on March 16, 2012.

- The Plaintiff’s forest and Defendant’s forest are adjacent forests and fields, and the Plaintiff’s forest and field are not access to the forest without going through the Defendant’s forest and field located between the Plaintiff’s forest and public service.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) are written and video, the result of the on-site verification by this court, as a result of this court’s entrustment of the survey and appraisal to the Director of the Korea Land Information Corporation in Gwangju District, and as a result, as seen earlier than the establishment of the right to passage over surrounding land, the plaintiff forest is a blind land and its surrounding land are deemed to be impossible or excessive to enter a public road by using other land than the defendant forest or its surrounding land, taking into account the current status and topography of the surrounding land. Thus, the plaintiff is recognized

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that there is an adverse impact on the security of an adjacent military unit in the event that the right to passage over surrounding land is recognized, and that there is a concern about the increase in traffic volume, but it is not sufficient to recognize it by itself. There is no other evidence. In light of the location of the military unit in the vicinity of the defendant forest, which is revealed in the descriptions and images of the evidence Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, and the current state of use as state-owned land and surrounding environment, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff's right to passage over surrounding land should be restricted solely

Next, the defendant's forest land is present.