1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The grounds for the court's explanation of this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following matters to not more than six pages 6 and not more than four pages 6 and the following matters are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Parts] 6 Since the Plaintiff’s land is a blind land, i) K-owned G, H, I, and J land to the extent necessary for the Plaintiff (hereinafter “K-owned land”).

(ii) It is reasonable to view that the right of passage over surrounding land is recognized on the way in which the owner of the right of passage is the largest damage among the roads leading to the instant land, which is owned by the Defendant.

With regard to this, the part of K-owned land abutting on the Plaintiff’s land, which is being used as a road, is currently a concrete package, and it is necessary to be used as a road in the future because it is adjacent to several houses, while the land owned by the Defendant is now developed as a dry field, and it seems that the land owned by K-owned is the one in which the Plaintiff’s passage or it is not necessary to be used as a road, and it seems to be the one in which the owner of the right to land is the largest damage.

7) The Plaintiff asserts that the part where the land owned by the Plaintiff and the K land are in contact, and that it is inappropriate to use the K land as a passage on the ground of fallingscam. However, according to the evidence No. 3 video, it is difficult to view that the fall on the part where the land owned by the Plaintiff and the land owned by the Plaintiff were in contact with the land owned by the Plaintiff was almost nonexistent, and it is difficult to deem that the passage interfered with the recognition of passage.

8) After the Defendant purchased the instant land from N, the Plaintiff allowed N residing in the current land owned by the Plaintiff to pass the instant land, and based on such status.