1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3-1, 2, and 6-1, 6-2, 2, 3, and 2-5 of evidence Nos. 1-2, 2, and 5 of evidence No. 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings as a result of on-site verification by the court of first instance.

The plaintiff's answer 1,498 square meters in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, is owned by the plaintiff, and the answer 1,096 square meters in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun is owned by the defendant, and each of the above lands is adjacent to each other, such as the indication of the attached drawing.

B. The lower part of each of the above lands adjoins the FF road (hereinafter “F road”), which is a contribution, and the instant F road is connected to the E road that is a contribution to North Korea, and is connected to another contribution in the cadastral map towards South Korea, but is actually connected to the fact that the cultivator of adjoining land cultivates part of the adjoining land as a dry field, and thus is not connected to the contribution.

C. The part (A) of the instant case is part of the Defendant’s land, and the width of the instant FF road is 123 cm or less, and thus, the Plaintiff could not pass through the agricultural machinery, and the Plaintiff has used the instant part (A) as a passage road with the Defendant’s consent.

In the meantime, the defendant set up a enormous and wire network in the line that connects each point of the annexed drawing Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 among the parts of the case (A) and obstructs the passage of the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment thereon

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant agreed to allow the plaintiff to pass the part of this case (A) between the plaintiff, the plaintiff can pass through the part (A) of this case pursuant to the above agreement, and the north part of the F road of this case cannot pass through the agricultural machinery because the width of the part (A) adjacent to the part (a) of this case is too narrow, and the remaining part cannot pass through the field because other person cultivates it as dry field. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to pass through the part (a) of this case pursuant to Article 219 of the Civil Act.