1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The parties concerned are owners of the building area of 572m2 in Gyeonggi-do, the building area of 550m2, the building area of 550m2 in Defendant B, and the road of 78m2 in F. The Plaintiff is the owner of the building area of 1,127m2 in G adjacent to the said land (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Defendants using the Defendants’ passage purchased each of the above land on or around January 1, 1998, and resided on the ground at that time while constructing a building for electric source of land, Defendant B used part (b) and 59 square meters in the attached Form No. 3 among the land owned by the Plaintiff, and Defendant C used each of the above parts (hereinafter referred to as “each of the above parts of each of the instant disputes”), among the attached Form No. 83 square meters owned by the Plaintiff, as their passage to the above land.

(c)

The Defendants filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018Gadan5184022, the Defendants filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the registration of ownership transfer. The primary claim is a claim for the registration of ownership transfer based on the completion of the statute of limitations for the acquisition of possession of each part of the dispute of this case. The primary claim was a claim for the registration of ownership transfer based on the statute of limitation for the acquisition of possession of the right to passage over each part of the dispute of this case. The secondary claim was a claim for the registration of the right to passage over the surrounding land based on the right to passage over the surrounding part of each dispute of this case.

On October 10, 2019, the above court rendered a judgment dismissing all the claims of the Defendants. With respect to the primary claims, the Defendants, etc. occupied the respective dispute areas of this case independently and openly for a period of 20 years.

It is difficult to see the first preliminary claim that was established by H, the previous owner of the Defendants, and since the establishment, H and the Defendants continued to use the passage for 20 years.

With respect to the second preliminary claim, there is no evidence to see, and each of the disputes in this case can be managed by the Defendants as a contribution from each land owned by the Defendants.