1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. At the time of September 6, 1994, the Plaintiff’s assertion was divided into the land located in Gyeonggi-gu L, which was owned by seven persons, including the Defendant and F, G, H, I, J, K, and K. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land under the Defendant’s sole name on May 1, 1995.

The plaintiff purchased neighboring land from K on April 21, 1995 and acquired its ownership, and constructed a house on that ground on July 1, 1996, and used the land of this case for a passage to the entrance of the house.

Therefore, on June 30, 2016, at the expiration of 20 years from July 1, 1996, the Plaintiff acquired the right to land of this case on June 30, 2016, and accordingly, requested the Defendant, the title holder of the land of this case, to implement the procedure for verifying the above right to land and for registering the establishment of the right to land stated in the purport of the claim

2. Article 245(1) of the Civil Act provides that “A person who possesses real estate in peace and openly with an intention to own it for twenty (20) years shall acquire its ownership by filing for registration.” Article 294 of the Civil Act provides that Article 245(1) shall apply mutatis mutandis only to a person whose servitude is continued and expressed.

The term "" is defined as "."

Therefore, the right of passage can be recognized only when the owner of the dominant estate establishes a road on the dominant estate and continues to acquire the prescription of the dominant estate for the benefit of the dominant estate in accordance with Article 245 of the Civil Code.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da17479, Mar. 20, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff opened the instant land as a passage for the neighboring land and continued to use the instant land for 20 years by itself, based on the evidence evidence No. 1 and No. 1 through No. 7, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.