1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

A. In the case of Namyang-si, J-si, the indication of the annexed drawings of 3, 4, 4.

Basic Facts

A. On March 13, 2018, the Defendant is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of a successful bid on the 13th day of the same month with respect to Jan-si, Namyang-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

[Attachment] Plaintiff 1,052 square meters of K farm site in Nam-si, Namyang-si, 1, the date of acquiring land ownership, and Plaintiff 1,052 square meters of L farm site in Nam-si, Seoul on September 2, 14, 198, G on August 3, 2015, Plaintiff 514 square meters in Nam-si, Namyang-si, n, 844 square meters in total, and 727 square meters in O miscellaneous land on April 12, 2016, Plaintiff 3,328 square meters in P factory site in Nam-si, Nam-si, 201 square meters in Nam-si on July 5, 2016, Plaintiff 1, 2005, Plaintiff 91 square meters in Nam-si, Namyang-si, 2011 square meters in Nam-si, and Plaintiff 1, 2005 square meters in Yangyang-si, 2017.

The Plaintiffs are those holding land adjacent to the instant land, and their ownership status are as listed below.

C. Before the Defendant acquired the instant land, there existed a meritorious road and a passage along the instant land (hereinafter “instant passage”) on the land, and the Plaintiffs have passed the instant passage using the said passage.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2, and the result of fact-finding on W in South Korea, the summary of the plaintiffs' assertion about the claim of the whole purport of the pleadings is the passage of village residents for a long time, and the passage of this case is a passage used for the passage of village residents. In order to make a contribution from the land owned by the plaintiffs, the part of the land in this case owned by the defendant should be controlled.

In order to obtain a factory building permit, it is required to secure a road of not less than 4m originally, but the defendant F corporation could construct a factory without obtaining the landowner's approval for land use separately due to the existence of the passage road in this case.

There are many factories around the passage of the instant case, including the land owned by the Defendants.