1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following supplementary determination as to the plaintiff's conjunctive claim.

(In addition to the evidence duly admitted in the first instance trial, the conclusion of the first instance judgment is justifiable even if examining the instant case by adding up the evidence presented by the Plaintiff in the first instance trial). 2. Supplementary judgment

A. It is reasonable to view that the original owner of the land has acquired the ownership of the land which was provided as a road by offering a part of the land without compensation to the original owner of the land to renounce the exclusive and exclusive right to use the land and thereby, the resident has given up his/her right to use the land without compensation and by selling it by auction, selling it, payment in substitutes, etc., or by acquiring the ownership of the land, since it is reasonable to deem that the person who specifically succeeded to the ownership of the land through auction, sale, payment in substitutes, etc

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da52844 delivered on May 8, 1998, etc.). B.

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, the defendant entered into a sales contract for land C with G on December 6, 2013, and entered into a special agreement that " approximately 18 square meters of land (referring to the current status of land C) specified in the construction permit as a basis for fences installed on the right side of this land may be acknowledged as having agreed to the effect of using it for a contribution by an unspecified number of unspecified persons, and the donation in arrears shall have the same effect as the donation in arrears." Considering that the above facts were included in the judgment of the court of first instance in the above facts, the defendant, the original owner of the land, provided part of the land to the road site without compensation, provided that the defendant, the original owner of the land, waives his exclusive right to use and benefit from the road site, and accordingly, residents, including the plaintiff, including the plaintiff, have the land free of charge.