1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of the area of water among the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. All of the Plaintiff’s remaining claims.

1. Basic facts

A. During the period from July 16, 1980 to December 27, 1982, D, the father of the original Defendant, purchased each real estate listed in the separate sheet from E, etc. (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and the maintenance of the instant real estate from E, etc., and used it as salt farms. As to each of the instant real estate 1/3 shares, during the period from February 2, 2004 to March 5, 2004, D, the father of the original Defendant, completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant maintenance under the name of F, the South-North, the Plaintiff, and the second South-North, and the transfer of ownership for each gift under the name of F on February 2, 2004.

B. The F, on March 20, 2009, bequeathed the shares of 1/3 of the instant real estate and the Defendant, who is his father of the instant maintenance, to the Defendant. On May 13, 2010, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Defendant with respect to the instant real estate 1/3 shares and the instant maintenance.

C. Since then, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and G operate a salt farm on the ground of 10,688 square meters in the instant real estate and the instant maintenance. For convenience, the Plaintiff divided it into three areas, and the Plaintiff’s 1 salt farm (41,917 square meters) in the 2nd salt farm (52,815 square meters), and the 3nd salt farm (38,165 square meters) in the 3nd salt farm (38,165 square meters), respectively, is operating by the Defendant.

The Plaintiff is using 30,014 square meters during the maintenance of this case in order to supply sea water before salt 1.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-3, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3-1-27, Gap evidence 5-1-5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine ex officio the determination on the part concerning the claim for confirmation of a water easement, and examine the legitimacy of the part concerning the claim for confirmation of a water easement in the instant lawsuit.

The benefit of confirmation in a lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation, and thereby, it is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment in order to eliminate the danger in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status because there is an ine

However, the plaintiff has a right to use water for the maintenance of this case against the defendant.