1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff filed a claim for damages against the Defendant for the confirmation of the right to passage over surrounding land, prohibition of farming road construction obstruction, prohibition of passage obstruction, removal of a vinyl house, and claim for damages. The court of first instance accepted the claim for confirmation of the right to passage over surrounding land, the claim for prohibition of passage obstruction, the request for removal of a vinyl house, the claim for damages, and the claim for prohibition of passage

Since only the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, the object of the judgment of this court is limited to the confirmation of the right to passage over surrounding land, the request for prohibition of traffic obstruction, the request for removal of plastic houses

2. Basic facts

A. On July 29, 1998, the registration of ownership transfer was made in the Plaintiff on July 29, 1998 with respect to the 4,347 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

B. On July 24, 2003, the said C 4,347 square meters was divided into C 2,695 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s K land”) and D 1,652 square meters.

C. On July 25, 2003, the Plaintiff sold D 1,652 square meters to the Defendant and E, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 1, 2003 by the Defendant’s share of the said land at the ratio of 3/5 and 2/5 E.

On April 15, 2007, the Defendant and E prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a written consent to land use (hereinafter “written consent of this case”).

E. On February 14, 2008, the Defendant purchased E’s share of 2/5 square meters of the above D 1,652 square meters from E on February 14, 2008, and completed the share transfer registration on February 20, 2008, and obstructed the Plaintiff’s entry from around that time.

Therefore, the plaintiff is unable to cultivate in K land.

F. On November 7, 2008, the said D 1,652 square meters was divided into D 337 square meters and the instant land and F 263 square meters.

G. The Plaintiff’s K land is a master land and cannot enter a public road without passing through the instant land owned by the Defendant. Since the passage road of this case among the instant land is located on the boundary side, which is not a part of the instant land, the Defendant’s damage caused by the Defendant’s right of passage over surrounding land is the largest.

H. At present, the passage along the instant road.