1. The Defendant also points out the attached Table 27, 32, 31, 33, 4, 33, 26, and 27, among the land size of 1,573 square meters of C forest land at the time of leisure by the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a 1,573m2 (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) in leisure-si.

A) The Defendant owns the Plaintiff’s land, etc., and the Defendant owns D 329 square meters adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land, a detached house, E forest land, 258 square meters, and 3,108 square meters prior to F. HK’s CNG LG G G (CJ2) the Defendant, without the Plaintiff’s consent to use, packages cement on the part of paragraph (1)(b) and 73 square meters of land among the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “instant land”) and operates agricultural machinery, etc. without obtaining the Plaintiff’s consent to use in order to enter F land into the said D and E land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-3-2, Gap evidence 6-2, the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the result of the commission of surveying and appraisal to the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to remove cement packaging roads installed on the land of this case and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s assertion on the waiver of the right to use the Plaintiff’s land has been used as a passage for the general public since July 23, 2014, and the Plaintiff purchased the Plaintiff’s land with the knowledge of the burden of restricting the use and profit-making of the instant land. As such, the Plaintiff asserts that the exclusive right to use and profit-making of the instant land should not be recognized and the Defendant’s free right to use and profit-making should

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the land of this case was provided free of charge through the passage of the general public. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. 1 The Defendant asserted that the right to passage over surrounding land is recognized as the only passage for entering the F-owned land owned by the Defendant, where the land of this case is cultivated as dry field, and thus, the Plaintiff is the Defendant.