1. To dismiss the instant lawsuit that has been changed in exchange at the trial;

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

1. The reason why this court is used as to this part of the basic facts is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the fact that “the alteration was made” with respect to the portion of 1686/1180 of G road’s 1,079 square meters (hereinafter “the road in this case”) as “the ownership transfer registration was made on October 30, 2013.” As such, this court cited it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) C et al. prepared and submitted to the Defendant a written consent to land use with the purport that the instant road may be used by many unspecified persons while filing an application for permission to divert farmland. On May 19, 2004, the Defendant added the above conditions of permission to use the instant road when granting permission to divert farmland to C et al. on May 19, 2004. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff purchased part of the instant road’s co-ownership on October 30, 2013. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has the right to walk the instant road. Accordingly, the final judgment of the case claiming the revocation of the disposition to suspend the use of the instant road, such as Suwon District Court 2006Guhap3200, etc., has a heavy effect in accordance with Articles

Therefore, the plaintiff

1. There is a right to pass through an entry route with a distance of 4.93 square meters and a distance of 10 meters in length, which connects each point of 17, b, c, 18, and 17 in sequence.

B. The Plaintiff’s claim seeking confirmation of the right of passage, such as the written purport of the claim, does not mean that the Plaintiff seeks confirmation of the right of passage against the Defendant, but rather seeks implementation of any measure relating to the confirmation of the right of passage, which constitutes an “action for performance of obligation,” which is not allowed under the current Administrative Litigation Act, and is in itself unlawful.

In accordance with Article 39 of the Administrative Litigation Act, it constitutes a party suit as provided in Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act.