1.(a)

Of the land listed in attached Table 3, among the land listed in attached Table 2, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 6, 2006, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 2,357 square meters of D forest land in the name of the Plaintiff prior to the subdivision. On February 8, 2011, the said land was divided into the land listed in attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) and the land listed in attached Table No. 4 (hereinafter “instant land No. 4”).

B. The land No. 1 is surrounded by the land indicated in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant land”); the land listed in paragraph (3) of the attached Table No. 3 owned by the Defendant C (hereinafter “instant third land”); and the land surrounded by the land of E, F, G, H, etc. when interesting in the third party’s ownership.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the claim for confirmation of traffic right over surrounding land

A. The plaintiff asserted that the land of this case owned by the plaintiff is without a passage leading to the present contribution, and the plaintiff plans to change graves installed on the above land and build a factory building. Thus, with respect to the part (C) of the land of this case owned by the defendant Eul-owned in sequence 267 square meters connected to each point of No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 11, 2, and 250 square meters of the land of this case among the land of this case owned by the defendant Eul-owned in sequence, the plaintiff sought confirmation that the plaintiff has a right to passage over surrounding land of this case, which is connected each point of No. 3 of the land of this case owned by the defendant Eul-owned in sequence with each point of No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 12.

B. 1) In full view of the records as stated in Gap evidence No. 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the verification by this court, the land No. 1 in this case is recognized as having no passage leading to the present meritorious deed, and it is not possible to enter the public road without passing over the surrounding land. Thus, the plaintiff, the owner of the land No. 1 in this case, has the right to pass over the surrounding land to the extent necessary for the use of the surrounding land.