1. The plaintiff and the plaintiff's successor's appeal against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the plaintiff and the plaintiff.

1. The reasons for the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case are as follows: (3) of the judgment of the court of first instance: (4) "In order to extend the current status of this case to four meters in width as requested by the plaintiff et al., it is necessary to review the occupancy and use permit of public waters and the possibility of disaster; and (5) even if part of the current status of this case adjacent to the current status of the river is formed by dry field and dry field, such circumstance alone alone is that the defendants are not using the land in question or the defendants cannot be deemed as not incurring losses, and therefore, it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following determination as to the plaintiff et al.'s assertion, it shall be cited as it is in accordance

2. The plaintiff et al. asserted that there is a benefit to confirm that the plaintiff et al. has the right to passage over the surrounding land on the current status road of this case, since the plaintiff et al. installed a tree farm on the current status road of this case and narrow the width of the road by putting large rocks and fluoring the stone and fluor, etc.

Although there are sections of the road that take measures to display pine trees adjacent to the existing road in order to protect pine trees or old trees, it seems that there is no problem in the vehicle traffic according to the shape of the existing road;

The rocks, etc. are not likely to obstruct the passage of vehicles, and unlike the allegations of the plaintiff, etc., it is insufficient to deem that the defendant interferes with the passage of vehicles, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

Therefore, the above assertion by the plaintiff et al. is without merit.

3. As such, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and all appeals against the Defendants by the Plaintiff, etc. are dismissed.