The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation must be immediately removed because of apprehensions in rights or legal status, risks, and the removal of such apprehensions and risks is recognized only as the most effective and appropriate means. Thus, in a case where there is no apprehensions in rights or legal status, risk is not existing, or where there is no practical necessity for the removal of such apprehensions or risks to be judged due to the existence of other special circumstances, it cannot be said that there is a benefit of confirmation, and thus, the lawsuit for confirmation is not allowed.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da21559 delivered on August 11, 1995, etc.). The mere entry or video of the return to the instant case and the spam spam, the evidence of Nos. 7 through 12, and the evidence of No. 14 (including the number number) is obstructing the Plaintiff’s passage on the instant land owned by the Defendant.

It is insufficient to recognize that there exists such apprehensions or risks, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, in this court, the Defendant stated that ① after purchasing the instant land, the Defendant did not interfere with the passage of the land, and ② the structure (Evidence No. 7) of the photographs submitted by the Plaintiff does not cover the locks only once they are installed formally due to the species of the Defendant (the contents of evidence No. 14 correspond thereto), and ③ there is no intention to interfere with the Plaintiff’s passage in the future.

It cannot be deemed that there is a benefit to seek confirmation of the existence of the right of passage over surrounding land, such as the purport of the claim.

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it as per Disposition.