1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except in the following cases. Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part "the plaintiff shall be the competent authority" shall be "the deceased shall be the competent authority."

The third-party 12 to 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows.

After dividing the land before subdivision as above, the deceased sold the remaining land from December 1, 1979 to January 1, 1982, with the exception of G 753 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). From that time, the land in this case was used as the passage of neighboring residents, including the above buyers.” The land in this case was used as the passage of neighboring residents as follows.

① The Deceased, after acquiring February 21, 1978, sold to a third party all the remaining land except the instant land designated as a road scheduled site after filing an application for subdivision on his own at a one-year and four-month period, and then dividing it. In light of the location and nature of the instant land, the instant land designated as a road scheduled site at king, which was suitable for the buyer of the land sold by the Deceased, to pass through a road for contribution.”

2. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified with this conclusion. Thus, the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.