1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 30, 1991 and owned it with respect to the JJ 360 square meters (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s land”).

B. The Defendants, on November 9, 2001, inherited 1/7 shares of the instant land from K and owned them.

C. One road is constructed from the Plaintiff’s land to the instant land (hereinafter “instant road”), and the key part of the instant land is being used as part of the instant road.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements and images, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff purchased the Plaintiff’s land on May 30, 1991, and constructed the instant road with the consent of KK, the land owner of the instant case, to construct housing, etc. on the Plaintiff’s land.

The Plaintiff had been using the instant road for not less than 20 years after the construction of the instant road. As such, the Plaintiff acquired extinctive prescription the passage right to the instant portion, which is a part of the instant road.

B. The Defendants’ instant road was already installed before the Plaintiff’s packaging, and the Plaintiff merely performed the packing work with the consent of the Plaintiff’s father, the Plaintiff’s father, and thus, did not construct the instant road.

Since the Plaintiff did not construct the instant road, the Plaintiff cannot acquire by prescription the passage area on the key part of the instant road, which is a part of the instant road.

3. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The provision of Article 245 of the Civil Act on the prescriptive acquisition shall apply mutatis mutandis only to the right to use another person’s land for the benefit of one’s own land for a given purpose, which continues to exist and expressed for a certain purpose.

Therefore, traffic area is owned by the owner of the dominant land.