The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court are recognized as legitimate even if each evidence submitted to this court is presented in the first instance court citing the judgment of the first instance (excluding the part concerning the scope of the right to passage over the main land). The reasoning of this court is as follows, except where the defendant added the following ‘2. Additional Judgment' as to the assertion emphasized or added by this court, and thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 6th judgment of the first instance court "(C) the scope of the right to passage over surrounding land is as follows:

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged as above, the aforementioned facts, the evidence, and evidence No. 9, which are acknowledged as added to the overall purport of the statement and pleading, i.e., the land owned by the Plaintiff was used as farmland for a long time, i.e., the Plaintiff’s land has been used as farmland for a long time; there may be cases where access to ordinary vehicles, other than agricultural machinery, is required for the input of human resources for farming and transportation of agricultural crops, and the width of the vehicle exceeds 2 meters, such as liftss, and ② Even if the land in dispute in this case has already been used as a passage for a long time, it is not a new violation of the Defendant’s right to passage over surrounding land, even if the right to passage over the surrounding land is recognized as within the scope of the right to passage over the surrounding land, it is reasonable to determine the land in this case as the scope of the right to passage over the surrounding land (in light of the situation of the use of the Plaintiff’s land,

(i) "";

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant asserts to the effect that it is unfair to recognize the right of passage over surrounding land in the dispute of this case, which is connected to the road, because the plaintiff used the road of this case for a limited period due to the delay in the defendant's implementation of public works.