1. Of the 453 square meters in Chungcheongnam-si, the Defendant indicated in the attached Form No. 2, 3, 17, 18, 19, 5, 6, 20, 21, 22, 23, 23, among the 12,754 square meters in Chungcheongnam-si.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an owner of 332 square meters and 1309 square meters prior to E in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”), and is a farmer in the Plaintiff’s land.

B. The Defendant is the owner of C previously 453 square meters and D orchard 12754 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) in Chungcheongnam-si adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land.

C. The Plaintiff’s land is not adjacent to the meritorious service that is surrounded by the surrounding land, such as the Defendant’s land.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, each entry or video of Gap evidence 1 through 8 (including a branch number if there is a serial number), the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the result of the commission of surveying and appraisal to the Chungcheong branch office of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff has the right to passage over the surrounding land as to the part as set forth in paragraph (1) of the Disposition among the Defendant’s land (hereinafter “instant passage”).

① After acquiring the ownership of the Plaintiff’s land on April 27, 2010, the Plaintiff used the instant road among the Defendant’s land as an access to agricultural machinery, such as a light railing machine, with the Defendant’s permission for about five years after leaving the Plaintiff’s farmland.

However, around April 2015, there was a dispute as to whether the Plaintiff fells out of the Defendant’s two pine trees while using the instant road. Since then, the Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff with the key to the steel inquiry set up in part of the instant road, and the Plaintiff did not use the instant road for farming purposes.

② As part of a mountain road entering the Plaintiff’s land and the Defendant’s land, the Plaintiff’s passage to the instant road does not directly cause substantial damage to the Defendant.

③ In addition to the instant passage, the Defendant asserts that there exists another passage (in addition to the instant passage, part of the land indicated in the “Attachment 7” page 2 of the Plaintiff’s complaint, and the passage leading to contribution via the detention reservoir) by which the Plaintiff may have access to the road.

However, there is a problem.