1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A owns a rice field of 440 square meters and its ground in Sejong Special Self-Governing City, Plaintiff B’s rice field of 460 square meters, Plaintiff C’s rice field of 341 square meters, Plaintiff D’s 430 square meters prior to L, Plaintiff E’s 435 square meters prior to M, and Plaintiff F’s 1,425 square meters, respectively.

B. The Defendant owned the above H-H land for factory (hereinafter “instant land”).

C. In around 2008, Plaintiff A opened a road on the ground near the part of “bbb” indicated in the separate drawings of each of the instant land, and then built concrete packaging.

The plaintiffs are entitled to their access to their buildings or lands.

The part of the land indicated in the port is used as a passage.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 2 (including each number), the whole purport of pleading

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs cannot enter the land owned by the defendant without passing through the land of this case. Thus, the plaintiffs have the right of passing over the surrounding land of this case (3.5m in width and 3m in preparatory width) as part of the land of this case owned by the defendant.

B. Determination 1) The right to passage over surrounding land under Article 219 of the Civil Act is not allowed to enter a public road without passing over the surrounding land or establishing a passage between a public road and a public road. In addition, even if the existing passage already exists, it is recognized that it does not function as a passage because it does not fit the use of the land, but if it has already been used as a passage, it cannot be recognized that the right to passage over another place is more convenient than the use of the passage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da1088, 95Da1095, Jun. 13, 1995).