1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is to delete the following from the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance: “The part on the opposite side, and the application for the resumption of pleadings filed by the plaintiff on December 8, 2016, which are presented by the plaintiff, also contain the same points as such; “the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been “the opposite side part”; “the plaintiff in the first instance cannot be deemed to have been “the 5th through 5th,” and “the 8 through 9th (the same shall apply even if these points are added to reference materials submitted by the plaintiff on August 11, 2017)” respectively; and therefore, it is identical to the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of the judgment as set forth in the following subparagraphs, and therefore, they are cited pursuant to the main sentence of

(1) The court of first instance held that, even if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff at the court of first instance, which was duly adopted and investigated by the court of first instance, the plaintiff or the owner of the land of this case did not have the right to passage over the access road of this case and did not maintain the village conference's consent on the establishment and use of the access road of this case at the time of the second pents installation without having the right to passage over the surrounding land and the right to access to the access road of this case, the part to add the judgment of February 2, 19

A. The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that it is unreasonable for village residents to prevent the passage of the instant access road by installing secondary pents, although village residents provided access roads to E, the former owner of the instant land, as the access roads to the instant No. 1 due to the 33,00 of the instant 30,00, but there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the fact that village residents provided access roads to E at the time of the 300,000,000, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Rather, according to each video of the evidence No. 28, the 300,000 of the instant 30,000,000 were provided.