1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is that of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment falling under the following paragraph (2), and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

(However, since the judgment of the court of first instance omitted a list, it shall be attached thereto). 2. Additional part

A. The Plaintiff’s signature and seal affixed as stated in the evidence No. 5-1-7 and No. 6-1-3, such as a written application for land division, a written application for land classification change, and a written notification of land change and change of land form and quality, submitted by the Defendant on the ground that the land division and land category change have been conducted upon the application of 13 persons including the Plaintiff, the owner of the land prior to the subdivision of the Plaintiff’s grounds for appeal.

Therefore, it is unreasonable to consider each of the above evidence as the ground for the waiver of exclusive right to use the land of this case, which is divided from the land before division.

On the other hand, the judgment of the court of first instance that recognized the waiver of exclusive right to use the land of this case, since the plaintiff did not consent or consent to the use of the defendant's land of this case.

B. First of all, there is no evidence to prove that each evidence of the plaintiff's assertion was forged or altered, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion of forgery or alteration is rejected.

Next, comprehensively taking account of the following facts acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 6 and video (including each number), 13 co-owners of the land before subdivision, including the plaintiff, waive the exclusive right to use and benefit from the land of this case by providing the land of this case as a passage for the remaining land through the application of subdivision and land category change (road in front) on Jan. 22, 191 in the housing site development process of the land before subdivision. The plaintiff thereafter renounced the exclusive right to use and benefit from the land of this case through the division of co-ownership on Apr. 1, 191.