1. The defendant is respectively indicated in the attached sheet No. 20, 21, 22, 10, 23, and 20 among the land of 1067 square meters in the Incheon pool-gun, Incheon pool-gun.

1. Determination as to the claim of the plaintiff A (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff only")

A. A. (1) The Plaintiff is the owner of the land located in Incheon Cheongjin-gun D 730 square meters (in the case of land located in E, the land location shall be indicated only by the lot number) and the F forest land of 540 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff 1”). The Defendant is the owner of C forest land adjacent to D land, which is the owner of the land of 1067 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant 1 land”).

(2) The Plaintiff 1’s land is not in contact with the contribution as a site state.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, and 5-1, each entry, field inspection result, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that the plaintiff is entitled to a building permit on the plaintiff 1's land, but it cannot pass through a public road without passing through the defendant's land, and therefore, the defendant's land has the right to pass over the surrounding land

C. (1) Determination is based on the overall circumstances, such as the existence and possibility of opening a passage to another substitute land, the topographical location and use relationship of both land, the neighboring land, the neighboring land use situation, and the benefit and loss of the users of the adjoining land, etc., in determining whether to recognize a passage right to passage over surrounding land and determining the width or location of the passage, etc., as it is recognized only when it is impossible to enter the surrounding land without a passage or a passage to a public road without a passage, or if it is impossible to actually function as a passage because it is inappropriate for the use of the land in question, even if it is a passage, and thus it is particularly recognized that the use of the land in question is inappropriate, at the risk of the damage of the owner of the passage right for public interest.

(2) In this case, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff 1’s land enters the public road without passing over the surrounding land.