1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. Claim for counterclaim filed in the trial.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "The evidence submitted by the plaintiff (Evidence Nos. 8, 20 (Lease Contract) and the result of appraiser L's appraisal)" No. 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 4 is added to "the defendant's evidence submitted by the plaintiff (the evidence No. 8, 20 (Real Estate Agent Certificate) and appraiser L's appraisal result)" and "the defendant's evidence submitted in the court of first instance, which constitutes a tort or a tort, which is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion that the DNA land owned by the plaintiff was damaged due to the construction of the concrete structure of this case, and the cost of restoration to the original state was incurred due to the inundation of the D land owned by the plaintiff, the statement No. 30 and No. 31-1, 2 of the evidence No. 31 shall be rejected, and further, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited in addition to adding the judgment No.

2. Judgment on the defendant's counterclaim

A. The defendant's assertion that the defendant is liable to compensate the defendant for 300,000 won per annum as damages arising from the passage, where the defendant's assertion, that is, the plaintiff's right to passage over the surrounding land owned by the defendant, where the right to passage over the surrounding land of this case that the plaintiff uses as the land for factory, is recognized to use the access road part among the surrounding land C

B. According to Article 219(2) of the Civil Act, where the right to passage over surrounding land is recognized, the person who has the right to passage over surrounding land shall compensate for the damages of the person who has the right to passage over surrounding land. In ordinary, such amount is equivalent to the amount of profit earned by occupying and using the land. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff paid KRW 300,000 per year for the use of the access road from the purchase of the land in this case to the date of 2013, there is no dispute between the parties. Therefore, in light of the circumstances where the Plaintiff and the Defendant set the amount of the use of the access road as KRW 30