1. The judgment of the first instance, including the claims modified by this court, shall be modified as follows:

The plaintiff's claim.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 16, 2017 with respect to the land of 2,350 square meters prior to Gyeonggi-gun B (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s land”). The Defendant is the owner of C forest land of 1,39,240 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. As a passage from the public road to the Plaintiff’s land, the part “1” (hereinafter “instant passage”) connected in sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the instant land among the Defendant’s land was used. However, in 2018, the Plaintiff packaged concrete packaging on the instant passage.

C. On October 10, 2018, the D Research Institute sent to the Plaintiff a letter of public notice stating that the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, who was a public property, submitted a package of access roads with a width of 4 meters and length of 40 meters, to the Plaintiff, was found to have illegally occupied the road, but the actor was not specified.

On May 2019, the Plaintiff restored the concrete packaging of the instant passage route to its original state, and the current passage route is currently non- packing.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 8, 10 evidence (including branch numbers in case of provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff used the instant passage to the Plaintiff’s land by cultivating crops, and used the instant passage as a farming road for transporting agricultural instruments or crops.

The Plaintiff’s land can not access the road without passing through the road of this case, and is the shortest distance that can access the road of this case to the road of this case on its topographical basis.

Although cement packaging is necessary, it is difficult to use the vehicle in the state where the passage route of this case is not sealed, the Defendant interfered with it even though it is necessary for cement packaging.

Therefore, this is applicable.