1. The part of the lawsuit in this case concerning the confirmation of traffic right shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's right of passage over surrounding land.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 458 square meters and 1,716 square meters prior to N prior to the Daejeon Seo-gu N (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”). The Defendants are co-ownership owners of M & 6,964 square meters adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”).

B. The development of the Daejeon Seodong P Housing Site was planned as apartment complex was around the Plaintiff’s land and the Defendants’ land, and QA road was installed around the said apartment complex, and RP parks and greenbelts was created around the said road.

C. S roads are divided into part of RP parks and greenbelts, and roads are connected to the Defendants’ land and QP roads.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1-3, Gap evidence No. 2, and No. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. Chief 1) There is no passage along the QV road, which is a contribution from the Plaintiff’s land owned by the Plaintiff, and S road is used only as a road for the Defendants’ land. Thus, the Defendants are the Defendants’ land indicated in the Annex (A) of the land owned by the Defendants (hereinafter “instant passage”).

(2) As to the Plaintiff’s right of passage, the Plaintiff should not interfere with the passage of the instant road, and the Plaintiff should not pay KRW 1,00,000 each day in the event of interference. (2) The Plaintiff’s land is being used as dry field. The Plaintiff may enter S road and Q road through the instant passage.

The Defendants did not obstruct the Plaintiff from passing through the instant passage.

B. 1) In a lawsuit seeking confirmation, the benefit of confirmation is recognized in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation, and thereby, determination by the judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s legal status when the Plaintiff’s legal status is unstable and dangerous (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da93299, Feb. 25, 2010).