1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The land owned by the Plaintiff is 3 square meters of B road B at Jeju-si (hereinafter “instant land”) and 432 square meters of C road (hereinafter “instant land 2”); and where the land of the said two parcels is collectively named, the land is owned by the Plaintiff.

B. Around the end of the 1990s, the Defendant: (a) installed the road packaging and waterworks on the Jeju-si D Road (hereinafter “instant meritorious services”); and (b) incorporated each of the instant land adjacent to the said road into the road; and (c) the Plaintiff made a written consent to the Defendant stating that “A request for division and land category change to each of the instant land as compensation, and even if the road works are performed, would not raise any objection against the future civil or criminal law (hereinafter “instant written consent”).

C. The instant land No. 1 was divided from E prior to 3230 square meters in Jeju, and the instant land No. 2 was divided from F forest land 2916 square meters in February 24, 2001, and the land category was changed to the road on the same day.

The Defendant covered cement concrete packaging on each of the instant lands, laid underground water-supply facilities, and currently, as each of the instant lands has been used as a passage to the general public, managed by the Defendant, such as maintenance and repair.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Gap evidence 4-1 through 4, Gap evidence 5-1 through 4, Gap evidence 7-1 through 4, Gap evidence 11, and the purport of whole pleadings]

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had a grave for the instant meritorious service, and the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to pack the instant land adjoining to the instant meritorious service and install water facilities. In response to the Plaintiff’s request, each of the instant land was used as a road free of charge. As a grave installed on the instant meritorious service, the Plaintiff’s use of the instant meritorious service as a road no longer interfered with the Plaintiff’s use of the instant meritorious service.