1. Of the land size of 1819 m2, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, the Plaintiff indicated in the attached Form No. 13, 14, 15, 17, 17, i.e., the

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 16, 1981, the Plaintiff: (a) entered the Plaintiff’s land via a passage established in the FF field 221 square meters prior to the annexation, where State-owned land was located, after completing the registration of ownership transfer on June 16, 1981.

B. On December 10, 1984, the Defendant owned the same 998 square meters of the same D 998 square meters prior to the merger, and on February 21, 2007, on October 16, 1992, purchased the said three parcels on June 23, 1993, and combined the said three parcels with H 1819 square meters (hereinafter “the Defendant’s land”).

C. The Plaintiff asserted that the passage of the Plaintiff’s land would cease to exist after purchasing the Defendant’s State-owned land. On March 21, 1994, the Defendant issued a written consent to the use of the farm road to the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff consented to the use of the F land before the merger as farming.

The Defendant, from around 2010, brought down posts, etc. on the Defendant’s land so that the Plaintiff could not pass through the Plaintiff’s land through the Defendant’s land, thereby hindering the Plaintiff from passing through the Plaintiff’s land. The Defendant sold the Defendant’s land on July 1, 2013 to the Intervenor acquiring the Defendant, who is the Defendant’s living together, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 9, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-1 evidence, Eul 1-1-16 evidence and images, verification results of this court, inquiry results, inquiry results, results of appraisal commission, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of claim recognition against the defendant, since the defendant lost his right by transferring the land to the defendant's intervenor, the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the defendant is the owner of the land is without merit.

B. The right to passage over surrounding land under Article 219 of the Civil Act, which is generally limited to the use of the surrounding land between the public road and the public road, is not only necessary for the owner of the right to passage, but also the surrounding land.