1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 30,836 square meters in Jeonnam-gun, Jeonnam-gun (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”). The Defendants are one-half owners of the share of 18,885 square meters in D-gun, Jeonnam-gun, Jeonnam-gun, Seoul-gun, and the Plaintiff is one-half owners of the share of 18,885 square meters in D-gun, Jeon

B. The Plaintiff’s land is the franchise surrounded by the land owned by the Defendants and others. Of the Defendants’ land, a part of the Defendants’ land is the only passage to enter the said F bank owned by the State, which was credited with the Plaintiff’s land.

C. Of the Defendants’ land for which the Plaintiff seeks confirmation of traffic rights, the following: (a) the passage route of 1.5 to 2 meters in width (hereinafter “part of the instant passage route”) is offered for the passage of the general public, including the Plaintiff, from the past to the past, among the following: (b) the indication of the attached drawings, cream, dives, iv, 3, 93, Doz., Doz., Doz., Doz. 3, Doz., Doz., and 25 square meters in width (hereinafter “

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the ground for recognition】 The entry (including additional number) in Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 2, each video, the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The gist of the defendants' defense is that the defendants provided the defendants' land for drainage and passage for neighboring residents including the plaintiff, and there is no way to obstruct their passage.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case against the defendants in which the plaintiff seeks confirmation of the right of passage over surrounding land and prohibition of disturbance against the passage of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

B. In a lawsuit for confirmation of determination, there must be the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is recognized in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation, and thereby, it is recognized that the adjudication of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate such apprehension or risk when the Plaintiff’s right or legal status is unstable or dangerous.