1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance shows the evidence submitted in this court, the fact-finding and judgment in the judgment of the court of first instance can be deemed legitimate

Therefore, this court's reasoning is citing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal as follows. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. On the third upper part of the judgment of the court of first instance, “K” shall be deemed to be “J”, respectively, of the parallel 2 to 3, the lower part of the third part, 8, the lower part of the third part, 6, and 4 at the lower part of the third part.

The fourth sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be from 10 to 3 upper parts of the fifth sentence as follows.

3) The scope of the right to passage over surrounding land is specifically acknowledged at the risk of damage to the owner of the land where the right to passage over surrounding land exists, in a case where there is no passage necessary for the use of the land between the public service and the public service. As such, the width, location, method of passage, etc. of the road should be determined to have the least damage to the owner of the land where the right to passage over land is located. This should be determined in accordance with social norms by taking into account the geographical location and location of both land, the surrounding geographical location and utilization relation,

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da75300 Decided June 11, 2009). In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s right to passage over the surrounding land extends to the entire land of this case, as seen above, in selling the instant H land to J, the Defendant, which is the franchisor, obtained the Defendant’s consent to use the instant land at four meters wide, and divided the instant land to implement this. The Defendant’s consent to use the instant land (including A)