1. The Defendant’s Intervenor’s motion to intervene in the instant case is dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of the application for intervention

A. On October 2, 2013, the Defendant Intervenor’s assertion by the Defendant Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) purchased land from the Plaintiffs in consultation with Kimpo-si F, G, H, I, J, and K located between the land owned by the Plaintiffs and the land owned by the Defendant Union for the implementation of the E-Road Construction Project. The Plaintiffs’ right of passage over surrounding land is not legally recognized, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion by the Plaintiff is not legally recognized. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion by the Intervenor is entitled to participate in the intervention in order to assist the Defendants in

(b) have interests in the outcome of the action in order to intervene in the action to assist one of the parties in any judgment case.

The term "interest" refers to an interest which refers to a legal interest, not a de facto economic or emotional interest but a legal interest. The existence of such an interest means a case in which the res judicata or executory power of the judgment in question is naturally granted or the judgment in question does not directly affect the effect of the judgment in question, but at least a case in which the legal status of a person who seeks to participate in assistance is determined on the premise

(See Supreme Court Decision 79Nu74 delivered on August 28, 1979, etc.). The plaintiffs sought against the defendants the confirmation of the right to passage over surrounding land and the claim for the exclusion of interference based thereon. The intervenor cannot be deemed to gain any benefit from the winning of the defendants. The intervenor cannot be deemed to have a legal interest, such as the res judicata effect of the judgment, or the determination of the legal status based on such premise. Thus, the intervenor's application for intervention in the lawsuit in this case is unlawful since it does not meet the requirements for participation.

2. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claims

A. The plaintiff 1-A shall state 4/10 shares in the real estate listed in Schedule 1(3) and paragraph 4 and 5 of Schedule 1.