1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the owner of 370 square meters prior to the wife population F (hereinafter “instant land”). The Plaintiff did not have a passage between the land in this case and the public road of the wife population G road in Yongsan-si, which is, in turn, necessary for the use of the relevant land, and thus, is not allowed to enter the public road without passing through the section of the attached map No. 1, 2, 3, and 1 among the areas of 50 square meters and 3,012 square meters adjacent to the ship, which are owned by the Defendants, in sequence 787 square meters prior to the wife population D, the wife population D, and thus, connected each point of 50 square meters and 3,012 square meters prior to E.

However, the Defendants interfere with the Plaintiff’s passage by installing steel gate, wire network, scopic, and traffic obstruction as stated in paragraph 2 of the purport of the claim, e.g., the above steel gate, wire network, scopic, and traffic obstruction. Thus, the Defendants remove the above steel gate, wire network, scopic, and traffic obstruction, confirm that the Plaintiff has the right of passage to the above e.g., e., e., (b) and they shall not install any obstacles or perform any act that obstructs the Plaintiff’s passage.

2. The right of passage over surrounding land, stipulated in Article 219 of the Civil Act, is a right based on the adjustment of mutual use of neighboring land, and recognized as a right to use the land, such as the owner or superficies of the land and the person having chonsegwon.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da22767 Decided May 8, 2008). According to the health class and evidence No.7-1 of this case, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff donated the instant land to H on March 9, 2010 and completed the registration of ownership transfer under H on March 10, 2010, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff has the right to use the instant land.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit to seek confirmation from the Plaintiff.

3. The instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.