1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 7, 1970, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of 10,065 square meters of D forest land in Hong-gun, Hongsung-gun (hereinafter “Before partition”).

B. On July 4, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with Defendant B on the 3,306 square meters of land before subdivision.

Meanwhile, on the same day, the Plaintiff and Defendant C drafted a written agreement to the effect that, “The construction of a road on the 1600 square meters of forest land E (hereinafter “instant land”) in Hongsung-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, with the construction of the road, the lease of KRW 30 million as a result of the construction of the road shall be determined.” (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

C. Since then, on August 1, 2014, the previous land was divided into 3,306 square meters of the D Forest in Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “land subject to sale”), F forest land 4,965 square meters, G forest land 194 square meters, and the instant land, respectively.

Defendant B, on August 13, 2014, completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name on the grounds of the aforementioned “sale on July 4, 2014.”

On the other hand, the defendants cut the part of 269 square meters in part (B) in the ship connecting each point of the attached drawing Nos. 1, 2, 23 through 28, 21, 22, and 1 among the land of this case, and the defendants cut the part of 269 square meters in order, and the road of this case is "the road of this case".

(i) has been used as a result of [the fact that there is no dispute over the basis for recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, and result of a request for surveying and appraisal of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The summary of the plaintiff's assertion was only that the plaintiff allowed the defendants to use the land of this case as an access road to the land subject to sale. The defendants arbitrarily cut the land of this case, altered its form, and constructed a legal surface and a road. This goes beyond the scope of the plaintiff's permission. Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff the money equivalent to the expenses for restoration to original state. 2) The defendants' assertion is subject to sale and purchase.