1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B, among the 600 square meters prior to Gyeonggi-gun D, each of the annexed drawings No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an owner of 986m20,000 square meters of forest Franchi-gun in Gyeonggi-gu (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”).

B. On December 28, 2015, Defendant B acquired the ownership of 600 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to the Gyeonggi-gun D, Gyeonggi-do, a neighboring land owned by the Plaintiff, and Defendant C acquired the ownership of 600 square meters prior to E on December 28, 2015 (hereinafter “instant land 2”).

C. Around September 2015, the Plaintiff submitted a letter of consent to the use of the instant land Nos. 1 and 2 and a letter of consent to road designation to use the land owned by the Plaintiff as an access road to the land owned by the Plaintiff from G, the former owner of the instant land and the instant land. The Plaintiff was granted permission to engage in development activities regarding the construction of the housing on the land owned by the Plaintiff from the Gyeyang Military Administration.

After obtaining permission for development activities as above, the Plaintiff: (a) section 41 square meters in a ship which connects each point of attached drawings indication 1, (b), (c), (d) 3, (d) 41 square meters in sequence among the land No. 1 in this case; and (b) section 1, (c) of attached drawings indication 1, (d) 41 square meters in sequence among the land No. 2 in this case; and (b) section 9 square meters in a ship which connects each point of 1, (d) 3 and 1

e)In order to have access to land for franchising, packing and adjacent H land, a road adjoining to each of the above lands has been constructed and used as a passage along with the residents so far. E. The land owned by the Plaintiff must pass through each of the instant roads in order to have access to land for franchising. [Grounds for recognition: Each of the entries, images, and arguments set forth in Gap (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) or 11 (including a serial number).

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The Defendants asserted that the lawsuit of this case by the Plaintiff and residents should be dismissed as it is unlawful because there is no interest in confirmation, so long as the Defendants do not have any dispute as to the use of each part of the passage of this case and did not obstruct passage.

(b).