1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiffs purchased from the F on September 27, 2018, G orchard 6,413 square meters (hereinafter “G land”) from Jeju-si, Jeju-si, and shared 1/3 shares, respectively.

The Defendant is the owner of the area of 4,886 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “E land”) before E in Jeju-si adjacent to the said land.

G The shape, location, etc. of land of G and E shall be as shown in attached Form 2.

On the other hand, the former owner F, etc. of G land connects each point of the attached Form 1, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 21, 22, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 1, which are part of the land E, to pass a public road from the said land.

Part of the claim (the same as the part of the land stated in the claim; hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) has been used.

On June 24, 2018, the Defendant established a iron gate with a locking device attached to the part leading to the instant land in a meritorious deed, and due to this, the Plaintiffs are currently unable to pass through a meritorious deed by using the instant land.

[Based on recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and images; the result of this court's request for the measurement and appraisal to the Jeju branch office of the Korea Land Information Corporation; the purport of the entire pleadings is that G land owned by the plaintiffs by the plaintiffs, as a master land, is not allowed to enter a contribution, or to install a new passage, if it is impossible to use the land of this case.

Therefore, as the plaintiffs have the right to passage over the surrounding land of this case, it is sought to confirm the right.

In addition, as long as the right to passage over surrounding land arises as above, the defendant is obligated to remove the iron gate, etc. that obstructs the passage of the plaintiffs' land in this case.

There is a method of allowing access to public service even without using the instant land from G land owned by the Defendant’s assertion.

Therefore, the land of this case is the only connection with the land owned by the plaintiffs.