1. Following the exchange change in the party room, the defendant's vehicle and employees belonging to the defendant, and I.C located in Taean-gun.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the defendant’s additional assertion and the plaintiff’s indirect compulsory performance are added to the court of first instance, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant asserts that the instant road site falls under any of the motorways, general national roads, Special Metropolitan City roads, Metropolitan City roads, local roads, Si roads, Gun roads, and Gu roads as stipulated in Article 2(1) and Article 11 of the Road Act, and the route thereof should be recognized by the competent authorities pursuant to the relevant provisions. The instant road site falls under the “road” subject to the Road Act or the “private road” subject to the application of the Private Road Act. As such, the instant road site falls under the “road” subject to the Road Act or the “private road” subject to the application of the Private Road Act, and the Plaintiffs cannot prohibit or restrict the Defendant’s passage. (ii) In order to become a road under the Road Act, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant road site was recognized as a road by the competent authorities as a road under the Road Act.

In addition, private roads under the Private Road Act mean only the roads other than those subject to Article 2 (1) of the Road Act or the Road Act, which are installed by permission for the installation of the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da61334, Mar. 10, 2005). Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant road site had obtained permission for the installation of the head of the competent Si/Gun as above.

We cannot accept this part of the defendant's argument.

B. The defendant asserts that the abuse of rights is asserted as follows. Even if the plaintiffs can seek prohibition of passage on the access road part of this case, the plaintiffs' claim for prohibition of passage constitutes abuse of rights.