1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the 466 square meters in Gangwon-gun C 466 square meters in annexed drawings 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 4, 16, 17, 17.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 2,582 square meters prior to the Gangseo-gun D (hereinafter “D land”), and the Defendant is the owner of the 466 square meters adjacent to the Plaintiff, which is the owner of the 00 square meters adjacent to the Gangseo-gun D (hereinafter “C land”).

B. D land is a blind, and the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s attached table 1 marks 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 4, 16, 17, 18, 19, 6, and 9 of the attached table Nos. 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 4, 16, 17, 18, 19, 6, and 9 (hereinafter “instant road”) have entered a public road by using a black land in D land.

C. The Plaintiff demanded that the Defendant be able to perform concrete packaging works, since the instant traffic route is narrow and slopeed.

On March 2016, the Defendant refused this and prevented the passage of vehicles, such as cement stairs, by creating cement stairs on the instant road.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking confirmation of the right to passage over surrounding land and the prohibition of interference with passage (hereinafter “new traffic route”) on the part (B) size 44m2 (hereinafter “new traffic route”) connected in order to each point of No. 9, 10, 5, 6, and 9 of the attached Form C among the land of the instant case, against the Defendant, for whom the passage of vehicles using the instant traffic route is impossible.

The Defendant removed the cement stairs that had been built as the passage of this case before the closing date of the relevant lawsuit.

E. On August 10, 2017, the Plaintiff’s claim is entirely dismissed on the ground that “In light of the fact that the Defendant removed cement stairs and used them for a long time as the passage of this case that the Plaintiff had already been used for a long time, and that the Defendant’s use of a new passage beyond the instant passage is more damage to the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s claim is entirely dismissed.”