1. The judgment of the first instance, including the claims extended in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

The defendant is against the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of D 641m2, E 1,143m2, F 2,397m2 and G 1,898m2 (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”).

B. As can be seen in the attached Form 3 drawings (part of the land cadastral map), the ownership transfer registration was completed on August 27, 1993, when the ownership transfer registration was completed in the Defendant’s future, the outer mother of the Plaintiff, on July 22, 2016, on the following day: (a) the Plaintiff’s land consisting of 1,747 square meters and the 98 square meters adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 2, 3, 4, 6 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1, 2, Eul 1, and Eul 1, the purport of the whole entries and arguments

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff used part of the Defendant’s land as a passage leading to a contribution, while cultivating crops from the Plaintiff’s land to the Plaintiff’s land. The Plaintiff’s access to a public road on the Plaintiff’s land must pass along the part (a) and (b) (hereinafter “instant passage”).

However, after the Defendant acquired the ownership of the Defendant’s land, the instant claim was filed on the grounds that the Defendant was in mind at the instant passage and prevented the Plaintiff from entering the said road.

B. The right of passage over surrounding land, stipulated in Article 219 of the Civil Act, is particularly recognized to be at the risk of causing damage to the owner of the right of passage for the public interest, which is the use of land without a passage necessary for its use, between the public interest and the public interest. Thus, in determining the width, location, etc. of the passage route, the method with less damage to the owner of the right of passage should be considered. However, at least the scope necessary for the use of the land owned by the right of passage should be permitted, and the degree of necessity should be considered as the necessary range in specific cases, depending on social norms, shall be considered.