1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall take the procedure for registering the creation of servitude, such as the entry in the separate sheet No. 2 from the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 25, 2012, the Defendant sold 340 square meters in G forest land to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on March 2, 2012 regarding the said real estate, since all the land appearing in E forest land 2,896 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff”) are located in F at si.

B. On April 23, 2013, the land category of E-forest land was changed to a site on April 23, 2013, the land category was divided into eight parcels (the same shall apply as indicated in attached Table 1-2.) and eight parcels (the same shall apply as indicated in attached Table 1-2) on May 1, 2013.

C. Since the main issue is whether the right to passage or easement to the land in question is recognized, the land category on April 23, 2013 was divided into the 140 square meters of G forest land and 340 square meters of land (hereinafter referred to as “instant disputed land”) and the 140 square meters of land and D large 200 square meters of land on May 1, 2013 after the land category was changed to “site,” among which C land was completed on June 20, 2013, the ownership transfer registration was completed for two persons, both J and J, and the land category on May 24, 2013 was changed to “road.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), 13 evidence, Eul evidence 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be considered together for the convenience of not more than the allegations of the parties.

A. On January 25, 2012, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff is liable to implement the procedure for the registration of the establishment of easement for the instant permitted site and the instant disputed land.

Furthermore, if the Defendant thought that the instant disputed land was used for the passage of 5,308 square meters and M 486 square meters prior to partitioning, it should have been used for one’s own passage after excluding the subject matter of sale. Since it is extremely unreasonable for the Plaintiff to provide the said disputed land to the Defendant again after purchasing it from the Defendant, it is limited to N-land and M-O land as stipulated in the instant sales contract.