1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 10, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased KRW 5,256 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to the registration of ownership transfer on November 23, 2012, for sale due to voluntary auction in Young-gun, Gangwon District Court’s Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul District Court’s Young-gun, which was owned by L, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 23, 2012.

B. On June 13, 1972, on the land owned by the Defendants adjacent to the instant land, the transfer registration of ownership in the name of the deceased NN (3/7 shares on December 2, 2004), deceased P (1/7 shares on April 9, 200), deceased P (1/7 shares on January 10, 1994, and Defendant B (2/7 shares) was completed due to the inheritance of property on January 13, 1972.

C. The network N and Defendant B, who are the children of the network P, jointly succeeded to the shares of the network P among the land owned by the Defendants. Defendant F, Defendant G, H, and I, who is the husband of the networkO, jointly succeeded to the shares of the networkO among the Defendants’ land owned by the Defendants. Defendant D and E, who is the children of Defendant C and the network N, jointly succeeded to the shares of the network N among the Defendants’ land owned by the Defendants.

The land of this case and the land owned by the Defendants are those not adjacent to the Pyeongtaek-gun Q, Gangwon, which constitutes a meritorious service.

E. On the road of this case where the Plaintiff seeks confirmation of the right of passage over surrounding land, there are about 500 narsss which were planted by Defendant B for about four years prior to Defendant B.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 (including the number with each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), fact inquiry inquiry reply of Pyeongtaek Chang-si, the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The main purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff is not allowed to enter the land of this case without passing through the Defendants’ land. Since the Plaintiff’s land owned by the Defendants, which was the most damaged to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is entitled to pass through the road of this case on the basis of the surrounding land passage right under Article 219 of the Civil Act.

3. The judgment is based on the right of passage over surrounding land as provided in Article 219 of the Civil Code.