1. The defendant is based on the contract establishing a servitude around March 2008 with respect to the land size of 992 square meters in Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Jung-gu.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the co-owner of the dominant land indicated in the order, which is the master land, and the Defendant is the owner of C forest land 992 square meters adjacent to the west-west side of the dominant land (hereinafter “the instant land”).

B. The Plaintiff sought to purchase the instant land from the Defendant around 2002 to build a road for use in the dominant station. However, on the grounds of the designation of the amusement park site, etc., the Plaintiff purchased the adjacent land (E forest part) owned by the Defendant in lieu of the designation of the amusement park site.

However, since it is difficult to divide the above neighboring land and to open a road, the plaintiff and the defendant concluded a so-called right modification contract around March 2008, and the plaintiff renounced all rights based on the above contract, but the defendant agreed to accept the use of the road as to the land of this case to the plaintiff.

[Ground of Recognition: Facts without a partial dispute, entry and video of Gap 1 through 8, Eul 1 (including partial heading numbers)]

2. In light of the following circumstances, prior to the determination of the cause of the claim, the Defendant’s assertion on the cancellation of the Plaintiff’s right to the purchase price return lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da53072, etc.) with the Plaintiff, emphasizing that the nature of the above contract was the consent to use the land for the construction of the road and the payment of the price thereof. After the Defendant’s winning judgment, the Defendant received the relevant litigation costs from the Plaintiff around December 2013, and at the same time delivered a letter of consent to use the road for the land in question, and at the same time, received the permanent period of use for the land in question, and delivered the letter of consent to use the road in the local government’s own donation conditions (No. 10 evidence) after the construction of the road. The Defendant’s holding the price derived from the purchase price from the Plaintiff after receiving payment from the Plaintiff, making the Plaintiff use the land permanently as the road through the conclusion of the right modification contract and the issuance of the written consent to use the road.