1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

A. The attached drawing Nos. 4, 5, 5, out of the 486 square meters of Gangwon-gun E-gun of Gangseo-gu.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1.The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the contents and images of Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including each number in the case of a serial number), the verification results of this court and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of a request for appraisal by the Korea Cadastral Work and the Korea Cadastral Work Agency branch.

On August 24, 2001, the date of acquiring the ownership of the land owned by the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, on March 30, 1989, the land owned on June 12, 2003, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant owned on June 23, 1998, the land as shown in the following table.

(hereinafter, each land owned by the plaintiffs is "land on the part of the plaintiff," and the land owned by the defendant is "Defendant's land" (b).

Since the Plaintiffs acquired the ownership of each of the Plaintiff’s land on the part of the Defendant and the Defendant’s passage interference 1), the Plaintiffs are 80 square meters in part of “bbb” portion in the ship (hereinafter “instant passage”) connected in sequence to each of the points of Annex 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 4 among the Defendant’s land adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land on the part of the Plaintiff.

(2) On April 13, 2012, the Defendant cultivated crops by forming a dry field on the ground that the instant road was owned by himself/herself, and prevented the passage of the Plaintiffs by piling up stone on the ground that the instant road was owned by himself/herself. The Defendant was indicted for interference with general traffic on December 28, 2012 and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 1,50,000 on December 28, 2012 as the Youngcheon District Court’s Young-gu Branch Branch 201, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 1,50,000,000.

C. The current status of the Plaintiff’s land and the Defendant’s land owned each house and the restaurant building on the Plaintiff’s land. The instant traffic road existed in a narrow frame between the Plaintiff’s land and the Defendant’s land, and the passage of the vehicle was possible.

The Plaintiffs are the passage of this case.