1. The Defendants are to the Plaintiff:

(a) As to the area of 464 square meters of forests and fields D in Yangyang-gun, Gangwon-do and the area of 7 square meters before Yangyang-gun, Gangwon-do.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 7,773 square meters in total and G 853 square meters in Yangyang-gun, Gangwon-do, and the Defendants are the owners of 29 square meters in H forest and 491 square meters in total and 1/2 equity shares in each of H forest and 29 square meters in total.

B. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff, the Defendants, and the J own each share of 1/6 and J 1/3 of the Defendants, respectively, as Plaintiff 1/3.

C. To pass a public road on the F land and G land owned by the Plaintiff, D land and E should pass through, and the said D land and E land have been used as the existing passage.

On the other hand, the part (a) in the ship and the part (b) in the ship, as shown in the annexed Form 1 drawings, are installed with one square meter in each area of 2 square meters in the ship, and mix 2 in the part (a) in the attached Form 2, as shown in the annexed Form 2, are planted with large trees. On the other hand, mark trees are planted existing in the part (b) in the same area as indicated in the annexed Form 2, and iron mars are installed by

[Reasons for Recognition] entry of Gap evidence 1, 4, 6, and 7, the result of the survey and appraisal of the Korea Land Information Corporation in this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The Defendants asserted that the part of the instant lawsuit’s claim for confirmation of traffic rights is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation, since they do not dispute that the Plaintiff had the right to access the instant land.

B. A lawsuit for confirmation of judgment is permissible when there is infinite risk in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status and obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da25078, Jun. 28, 2002) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da93299, Feb. 25, 2010). However, in light of the progress, etc. of the lawsuit in this case (the Defendant removed kin tree that became the object of the appraisal even if the survey was already conducted in the lawsuit in this case).