1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is that of the judgment of the court of first instance except for an additional determination under paragraph (2) as to the assertion emphasized by the plaintiff by filing an appeal, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

(The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff are not significantly different from the allegations in the judgment of the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are recognized as legitimate). 2. Determination as to the plaintiff'

A. According to the summary of the assertion in the prior suit between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant had passed through the existing passage on the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “existing passage”) on April 22, 2002, but around 2010, a new passage that allows access to the Defendant’s land was maintained (hereinafter “new passage”).

Therefore, regardless of whether the right of passage recognized to the defendant in the preceding lawsuit is the right of passage over surrounding land or the right of passage based on the agreement under Article 219 of the Civil Code, the defendant cannot use the existing right of passage any longer.

B. The following circumstances are comprehensively taken into account the respective descriptions and arguments of Nos. 3, 6, and 7 (including numbers in the case of each number) and the overall purport of the arguments, namely, ① the prior suit between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was filed by the Defendant on the ground that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff was null and void, and the prior suit between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was not filed for the confirmation of the right to passage over the surrounding land in this case. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant was recognized as having been granted the right to passage over the surrounding land in the prior suit, ② the Plaintiff asserted that there was a change of situation that was established as a new passage through which the Defendant had access to the surrounding land after the prior suit. However, on the road around 2010 among the new passage claimed by the Plaintiff.