1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is that "the result of on-site inspection by this court" in the third second second part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be "the result of on-site inspection by the court of first instance", and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 2.

B. In addition to the dismissal of a claim as follows, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, the claim is cited in accordance with

[Attachment] The right of passage over surrounding land under Article 219 of the Civil Act is particularly recognized to be at the risk of causing damage to the owner of the right of passage for the purpose of public interest, which is the use of land without a passage necessary for its use, between the public interest and the public interest. Thus, in determining the width or location of the passage route, the method of causing less damage to the owner of the right of passage shall be considered. In a specific case, the degree of necessity should be determined based on the geographical location, location, form and use relation of the land between the parties concerned, neighboring geographical state, understanding of the users of the surrounding land, and all other circumstances in accordance with social norms. The scope of the right of passage is only recognized within the scope of the use of the land at present, but it does not be determined in advance.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da30993 Decided October 26, 2006, etc.). The Plaintiffs are adjacent to the ditches for which confirmation of traffic rights is sought. Since the ditches do not have any fact that the Defendant obtained permission from the competent authority to occupy and use from the ditches, the Plaintiffs are asserting that the part is the part which is the largest damage to the Defendant. Thus, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion

According to the results of the fact-finding on the Namcheon-si Office of the first instance court, the part for which the plaintiffs sought confirmation of the right of passage is adjacent to H roads and J ditches, and the defendant separately obtained permission for the said part of the ditch.