1. The Defendants successively connected each point of the attached Form Nos. 1, 2, 19, 18, 17, 17, and 1 among the 1,354 square meters prior to Incheon Strengthening Group F.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an owner of 5,950 square meters of G forest in Incheon Strengthening-gun.

B. The Defendants are co-owners who own 1/4 shares of 1,354 square meters prior to F.

C. There is no passage between the above G forest land and the meritorious service, and in the above G forest land, there is no passage between the above G forest land and the service, and the access to the service is not possible or excessive costs are required without passing over the area of 79m2 in sequence of the annexed map Nos. 1, 2, 19, 18, 17, and 1 among the above G forest and the service areas.

The Defendants laid agricultural crops into the above 79 square meters in part (i) of the ship, set up pents and steel nets, and interfered with the passage of the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 2, 6 through 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the verification by this court, the result of the appraisal commission to the Director of the Incheon Regional Headquarters of the Korea Cadastral Corporation, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff, the owner of the said G forest, has the right to pass a part of 79 square meters in the above G forest pursuant to Article 219(1) of the Civil Act.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obligated to collect agricultural products and fences laid down in the area of 79 square meters in part (i) in the above ship and remove the steel nets installed in the same part (i) in sequence with each point of 1, 2, 19, 18, 17, and 1 of the above drawings, which are linked to each point of 1, 2, 19, 18, 17, and 1.

3. The Defendants asserted that “the Plaintiff’s land is forests and fields on the land use plan, and the Plaintiff had access to a vehicle and agricultural machinery in the way between H and I land, and the owner of H land recently started to enter the part above (i) owned by the Defendants while constructing a new food factory. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s right of passage to surrounding land for passing the Plaintiff’s land cannot be acknowledged as to the above (a).”