1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After filing an appeal.

1. The relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same.

Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 2. The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance as to the primary claim is stated in

(Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 3. Determination on the conjunctive claim

가. 원고의 주장 이 사건 토지에는 공로로 통하는 통로가 없으므로, 원고는 피고 소유 김해시 C 대 559㎡ 중 별지 제3도면 표시 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 10, 2의 각 점을 차례로 연결한 선내 ㈏ 부분 71㎡의 폭 2.5m의 통로(이하 이 사건 통로라 한다)를 통하여 이 사건 공로에 통행할 수 있는 민법 제219조의 주위토지통행권이 있다.

B. In light of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the evidence Nos. 2 and the results of the on-site verification by this Court, the appraiser I’s appraisal results and the overall purport of pleadings, the Plaintiff’s land cannot have access to the Plaintiff’s land unless the passage of this case is used:

It is difficult to view that passing through the instant passage to the Plaintiff’s land for contribution is the place and method with the lowest damage to the Defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is not accepted.

1) In order to have access to the instant land in the public road so far, the Plaintiff continued to pass the passage along the instant land into a dry field with the passage of 169 square meters, G previous 1,193 square meters, which is owned by another person, in order to have access to the instant land, from among the 60 square meters of the attached drawing No. 13, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, and 13 among the 60 square meters of the attached drawing, which are owned by the Defendant, in order to have access to the instant land in the public road so far, the Plaintiff appears to be able to pass through the instant land through the above existing passage (only if the passage is obstructed due to the steel fence installed in the existing passage, there is no possibility to seek the exclusion of the disturbance). The evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff alone, which is insufficient to use the instant land as an existing passage, thereby failing to function as a practical passage.

or existing.