1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. From around 2002, the Defendant owns a site for a stock farm that entered the purport of the claim (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) and a single-story building related to the steel frame, sand site, sand site, and animal-related facilities on the ground (hereinafter “the instant building”).

B. From November 2, 2010, the Plaintiff is entitled to “Plaintiff’s land” and “Plaintiff’s land”, both of which were 331 square meters in G, 331 square meters in Hanam-si and H 331 square meters in total.

in common the property is owned.

(c)

Plaintiff

The Intervenors are holding land in contact with each of the above land (hereinafter “land owned by the Intervenors assisting the Plaintiff”).

(d)

Plaintiff

Land, and the land, Defendant, and the instant dispute and the location and topography of the instant building, among the intervenors joining the Plaintiff, shall be as specified in the following drawings:

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including numbers), the court's commission of appraisal to the branch offices under the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff parked the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the front side of the land owned by the Intervenor joining the Plaintiff’s land after parking the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the front side of the land owned by the Intervenor joining the Plaintiff’s Intervenor. However, once the said road becomes final and conclusive on the second line, there was no parking space actually used. The Intervenor’s Intervenor’s land installed a fence or a vinyl on his own land and became unable to use the land as a passage through the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s land. However, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s land was no longer allowed to enter the Plaintiff’s land unless the Plaintiff’s land in question owned by the Defendant is

Therefore, the plaintiff sought against the defendant the confirmation of the right to passage over the surrounding land on the land in question (three meters wide) and the prohibition of the removal of the building in this case constructed on the above land and the obstruction of passage.

B. The right to passage over surrounding land as stipulated in Article 219 of the Civil Act is a purpose between the public interest and its meritorious service.