1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff was completed on the grounds of sale as of June 29, 1989 with respect to Fancheon-si F Forest land 22,79 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”), the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff was completed on the grounds of sale as of May 12, 1989, on the grounds of voluntary auction as of July 14, 2015, on the grounds of sale as of July 14, 2015, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of H was completed on the grounds of the trust as of November 2, 2015, on the ground of the trust as of February 11, 2016, and on the grounds of the ownership transfer as of February 11, 2016.

B. The Defendants hold one half of each share of D large scale D 775 square meters and E river 607 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).

[Ground for recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 (including branch numbers for those with branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the passage of the instant road was set up before 1989 by the residents, who were agricultural workers in G, I, and neighboring areas, and the passage of the instant road had been in peace and public performance for at least 20 years. As such, the passage of the instant road was acquired by prescription as to the instant passage.

In addition, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the land owned by the Plaintiff and acquired the instant traffic zone along with the instant traffic zone. As such, the Plaintiff sought confirmation from the Defendants obstructing the passage of the instant traffic zone to the Plaintiff that the traffic zone on the instant traffic zone exists.

B. Inasmuch as Article 245 of the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis only to cases where the right of determination is continued and expressed, the right of passage can be recognized only if the objective situation where the owner of the dominant land installs a road on the top of the servient tenement and uses the servient tenement continues to exist for the period stipulated in Article 245 of the Civil Act.

Supreme Court Decision 92Da20385 delivered on September 8, 1992, 91Da46861 delivered on May 11, 1993, 94Da425 delivered on January 20, 1995