1. The Defendants are indicated in the attached Form No. 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 4 among the land size of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 704.1 square meters to the Plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are co-owners (the Plaintiff A, the Plaintiff B, the Plaintiff B, and the Plaintiff 2/9 shares) of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Lbubro 628m2 (hereinafter “instant land”), and the Plaintiff A, the five-story commercial buildings on the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”), and the two and three-story parts of the instant building, respectively.

In addition, the plaintiffs also leased the Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government M land located behind the building of this case from the Republic of Korea and used it as a parking lot for the building users of this case.

B. The Defendants shared 1/2 shares in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government roads 704.1 square meters (hereinafter “instant roads”) adjacent to the instant land.

(Defendant C79.05/704.1 Shares, Defendant D, E, F, G, and H 30/704.1 Shares, Defendant I90/704.1 Shares, and Defendant J 33/704.1 Shares).

The land of this case is not a road that can enter the road of this case without passing through the road of this case. D.

On the other hand, as of the closing date of the pleading of this case, the Defendants installed steel fences in order to connect each point of 9,10,11 of the attached drawings among the roads of this case, and 13, 14, and 15 of the 15 meters of the 15m of the adjacent map and the 11m of the 13, 15m of the same drawings.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 and 5 (including additional numbers), images, the result of the survey and appraisal conducted by appraiser N, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs have the right to passage over surrounding land as stipulated in Article 219 of the Civil Act with respect to the road of this case owned by the defendants in order to enter public service.

However, the defendants are obstructing the passage of the plaintiffs by installing steel fences in part of the road of this case, and they are abuse of rights to bullying. Thus, they are obliged to remove the above fences.

B. The Defendants are pents within the scope of 2 meters where the Defendants suffered the lowest damage for the Plaintiffs’ passage.