1. A ship that connects the Plaintiff with each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 1, among the area of 816 square meters in Gangnam-si D, Gangnam-si.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The 294 square meters of land owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) is adjoining to F,454 square meters prior to F (hereinafter “Defendant’s land prior to subdivision”) and is a franchising that there is no part adjacent to the contribution.

B. On November 22, 2000, G, the owner of the Defendant’s land before subdivision, completed the registration of initial ownership on the Plaintiff’s land as to the two buildings of wooden low-rises housing. On June 14, 2002, the Defendant acquired the ownership of the Defendant’s land by donation from G before subdivision, and acquired the ownership of the said building by gifting it from G and H in sequence on September 222, 2014.

The two buildings were removed on June 13, 2017 before the instant lawsuit was filed.

C. On July 13, 2017, the Defendant started construction of a detached house of 93.24 square meters on the part of the Defendant’s land prior to subdivision and completed the registration of initial ownership on December 26, 2017 following the completion of construction on December 20, 2017.

Before subdivision, the Defendant’s land was divided into 571 square meters prior to F on November 1, 2017 (hereinafter “Defendant’s land after subdivision”) and 816 square meters prior to D, and 67 square meters prior to I. The land category of the Defendant’s land was changed to the site after subdivision on December 28, 2017.

Plaintiff

The nearest way from the land to the contribution is the boundary of the defendant land and the land of this case after the division.

[Reasons for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7 (Partial number omitted, hereinafter the same shall apply)

) Each description of Eul evidence 1 to 4, the video of Gap evidence 5, the result of the verification by this court, the result of the appraiser J’s appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the allegations and determination of the above 1-A, the Plaintiff’s land is surrounded by the Defendant’s land before subdivision, and there is no passage leading to a contribution. Thus, the Plaintiff’s land may pass through the Defendant’s land before subdivision, which is the surrounding land, to enter the public road (Article 219(1) of the Civil Act). As long as the Defendant contests the existence and scope of the right of passage, the benefit of confirmation is recognized.

On the other hand, the right of passage over surrounding land.