1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the land indicated in the attached Form and the land adjacent thereto (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Plaintiff’s land”). The Plaintiff is the owner of the land indicated in the attached Form and the owner of the land adjacent thereto, namely, the land of KRW 2,431 square meters, KRW 826 square meters, KRW 96 square meters, KRW 578 square meters, G road of KRW 1,66 square meters, G road of KRW 1,66 square meters, and H forest land of KRW 662 square meters, and KRW 2,571 square meters.

B. The Gyeonggi-gu J (hereinafter “instant meritorious services”) is the most adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land, and there is a concrete package of a passage that approaches the Plaintiff’s land to the instant meritorious services (hereinafter “actual packing roads”).

The current packing roads are constructed on the land of the Gyeonggi-gun, the Gyeonggi-gun, the co-owned waters (hereinafter referred to as the "chilling road of this case") and on the land of the parcel, such as the land indicated in the attached sheet. In the vicinity of the land indicated in the attached sheet, as indicated in the attached sheet 3, the instant ditch and the land indicated in the attached sheet are developed across the boundary of the land.

(c)

Plaintiff

Land is surrounded by forests, mountain, etc. except in the direction of the packing road, and is not adjacent to other public services.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 (including numbers for items with various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 7, Eul evidence and video, each of the results of the appraisal commissioned by the Korea Land Information Corporation at the time of this Court to the Dental branch, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. In addition to the direction of the current packing road, the Plaintiff’s right of passage over the surrounding land should be recognized, since there is no other way to pass on the Plaintiff’s land with the instant meritorious service.

The scope of the right of passage over surrounding land should be recognized within the scope of the place and method where the damage to the owner of the surrounding land is the lowest, so the right of passage over surrounding land should not be recognized in the entire part corresponding to the current situation packing road, but the plaintiff's daily life by entering