1. Defendant E shall also indicate the Plaintiffs’ appraisal in attached Form 1, A, B, 2, 3, 3, and d, among G forest land G 255 square meters in Sungsung-si.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiffs share the 1/4 shares of 1/4 shares of I, I, 99 square meters and H, H, 822 square meters (hereinafter “the Plaintiffs’ land”).

B. In order to pass through a public road on the plaintiffs' land in the instant case, the method of leading to 255 square meters of G forest land (hereinafter "land in this case"). The land in the Seosung-si, which is claimed by the defendant E to have contributed to the public road, is not currently packed, and the distance from the road to the road is 7-80 meters, and the road is 7-80 meters, and it seems inappropriate to be used as a substitute in the present state.

C. On July 28, 2014, Defendant E awarded a successful bid for the instant dispute in the process of compulsory auction and completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name on July 29, 2014.

Defendant E installed steel structure, such as the order of Paragraph 2, on the ground of the instant dispute land, and obstructed the passage of the plaintiffs on the instant dispute land.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 14, 17 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claims against defendant E

A. 1) Whether a right to passage over surrounding land can not be established as a result of the formation of a right to passage over surrounding land which is surrounded by the land owned by another person, and even if a separate access road has already been established, if the access road is inappropriate for the use of the land in question and thus does not actually function as a passage or excessive costs are required for the construction of a passage, the right to passage over surrounding land under Article 219 of the Civil Act may be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2012Ma1417, Feb. 14, 2013). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following circumstances acknowledged by the foregoing facts, i.e., the Plaintiffs’ right to passage on the land in this case.