1. The defendant acquisition intervenor indicated in the attached Form 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 19, 20.20 of the land size of 658 square meters before Sejong Special Self-Governing City D.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the instant land, and the Defendant (i) (i.e., the withdrawal; hereinafter “Defendant”) was the owner of the 2,868 square meters and the 167 square meters adjacent to Sejong Special Self-Governing City E-Governing City and the 167 square meters adjacent thereto (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant land”; and (ii) was the owner of the 546 square meters prior to G and the 658 square meters adjacent thereto.

B. On May 2, 2016, the Defendant sold G land and D land owned by it to the Defendant Intervenor, and completed each registration of transfer of ownership based on sale to the Defendant Intervenor on July 8, 2016 during the instant lawsuit.

C. On August 12, 2016, upon Defendant’s application for intervention in the acquisition of shares on August 12, 2016, the Defendant acquired the Defendant’s status in the lawsuit, and the Defendant withdrawn from the lawsuit of this case.

On the other hand, among D land for which the plaintiff seeks confirmation of traffic right, H land is located adjacent to the area of 74 square meters in the ship connecting each point in order of indication 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 15 of the attached drawing(s) among D land for which the plaintiff seeks confirmation of traffic right, and H land is located, and there is a drainage according to the boundary between the said area of dispute and H land. The defendant installed a steel network fence on the left side of the drainage, cultivated crops on the right side of the drainage, and the defendant acquisition intervenor participated in the lawsuit of this case without attracting the aforementioned phenomenon.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 8-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 2 and 7, each video, the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the land of this case is not a public road shall be confirmed with the right of passage over surrounding the dispute of this case among D land owned by the defendant's intervenor for access to a public road to the land which is not a public road, and the defendant is obligated not to perform any act interfering with the plaintiff's passage over the dispute of this case.

(b) the defendant.