1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff was an owner of C forest land of 1,949 square meters and D forest land of 2,058 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) in Chuncheon-si, and filed a construction report on August 2009 to newly construct a house on the ground and commenced the construction on March 2012.

The Defendant is the owner of 2,560 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) prior to Chuncheon-si.

Of the instant land, the attached reference is a cement package with a width of at least four meters for a part of 112 square meters in the ship (2) connected each point of the attached Table 9, 10, 24, 13, 14, 26, 25, and 9, among the instant land. As part of the support project for power plants and G Environs, F, which was in force from October 11, 2004 to November 22, 2004, was included in the road packing section of 177 meters in length, which was enforced from November 22, 2004.

The land adjacent to the land of this case has a right-hand way on the non- packings (hereinafter “instant right-hand way”) established in the form surrounded by the land of Switzerland-si and the building on the ground of the land owned by Nonparty H.

From April 15, 2012, the Defendant obstructed passage by means of installing a signboard to the effect that “this case’s land is a private land and is expected to be restored to the original state, and thus controlling vehicle passage,” on the part of the route through dispute, from April 15, 2012.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the confirmation of traffic obstruction and traffic right as the Chuncheon District Court 2012Da13258 against the defendant's above act of traffic obstruction.

The judgment of the court of first instance and the court of second instance against the Plaintiff on the ground that there was apass road in this case, but the judgment of the court of final appeal was reversed, and the judgment of the court of final appeal rendered in favor of the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff had a right to passage over surrounding land for the passage of the Plaintiff on the part of the dispute road in this case was affirmed, and

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 2-2, Gap.