1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The plaintiff is one of five co-owners who purchased a forest of Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government from E/F on August 2014 and acquired the forest of Jung-gu.

In order to pass through G, which is a public road with the above land, there is only a method of using 639.2 square meters of C forest owned by the defendant in the form of narrow and long way like a road as a passage.

On September 201, 201, the Defendant had already renounced the exclusive right to use and benefit since it purchased the said land at a public auction procedure with a well-known knowledge of these circumstances.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant is obligated to express his/her consent to the plaintiff as to the construction and use of a road on the land owned by the defendant.

Judgment

Before the Defendant, I examine whether a person who owned C forest land 639.2m2m2 before the Defendant renounced his right to use and benefit as alleged by the Plaintiff, and whether the Defendant may also be deemed to have renounced his specific succession by purchasing it in the public sale procedure with the knowledge

As such, the expression of intent to waive is not against a specific person, and it is actually displayed by providing the above road-shaped land to many people without compensation for a long time. The plaintiff argues that "in the process of creating and selling a housing site, it was scheduled to be a road," and there is no argument by the plaintiff as to the fact that the previous owner of the defendant had provided the land without compensation for a long time through the passage leading to the contribution of the land.

Rather, according to the defendant's assertion, the tree seems to be infinite (B) and the road is deemed not to be a passage.

Since the argument that the owner of the previous owner renounced his right to use and benefit is unreasonable, the defendant's assertion that he succeeded to the burden is without merit.

We examine whether the defendant renounced the right to use and benefit by imposing the burden on the road.