1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 492 square meters in D miscellaneous land in Kimpo-si (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) and 198 square meters in a single-story livestock shed in the prefabricated-si, Kimpo-si (hereinafter “instant building”). The Defendant is the owner of 2,153 square meters in the vicinity of the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).

B. On February 2013, the Plaintiff leased the instant building to E, and E uses the instant building as a factory.

C. On May 7, 2014, the Defendant filed a claim for tolls on the ground that the damage was caused by the continuous use of the Defendant’s land to E, and notified that he would take measures such as restriction on traffic by installing a facility when the Defendant continues to use the Defendant’s land illegally.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, and 7 evidence (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s land as indicated in the separate sheet No. 28, 29, 30, 33, 32, 34, 35, and 28, among the Defendant’s land, is not a contribution unless it passes through a part of 40 square meters in the “bb” portion (hereinafter “the instant land subject to passage”) connected with each point of the attached sheet No. 28, 29, 30, 33, 32, 34, 35, and 28.

B) For about 20 years, many and unspecified persons including the Plaintiff have passed free of charge, and the previous owners of the Defendant’s land have no objection thereto. However, the Defendant is seeking to prevent the Plaintiff’s passage to the instant destination while demanding tolls, and thus, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of the Plaintiff’s right of passage to the instant destination and prohibition of interference with passage to the Defendant.

2. There has already been a passage to contribute to the Plaintiff’s land adjacent to the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no excessive cost for the use of the above passage. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not required.