1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's primary claim and the ancillary claim added by this court are all available.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendants own 1/2 shares in relation to K forest 6,662 square meters (hereinafter “the Defendant’s land”), each of which is owned by each of the Defendants, and the Plaintiffs own a plot of land, 960 square meters and 19 square meters in the vicinity of the Defendants’ land (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”).

B. The Plaintiffs’ land (M field, L field, N, O, P, Q, and R Forest, etc.) is located in the lower direction for the left-hand side of the Defendants’ land indicated in the annexed drawing. Of the Plaintiffs’ land, the Defendant’s land is opened with a package of 4 meters wide on the front, Tland, Q, U, and V forest and field, and this packing road is connected to the surrounding and conjunctive passage of the instant case.

C. If a part of the main passage of the instant case includes the ditches, and thus is credited, it is necessary to reclaim and pack the part of the ditches. The ancillary passage of the instant case is possible to pass along the vehicle.

There is a package of three meters wide (the part on the sign of the drawings in the attached Form; hereinafter referred to as the "existing passage of this case") connected to the road in the direction of the right side of the main passage of this case and the ancillary passage of this case. There is a click section on the existing passage, but it is possible to pass the vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-7, Eul evidence 5 (including each number in case of additional number), each video, the first instance court and this court's on-site inspection result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The relevant legal doctrine recognizes a right to passage over surrounding land only when there is no passage necessary for the use of the land between the owned land and the public road, and thus, if there is already a passage necessary for the use of the land, the right to passage over another place cannot be recognized solely on the ground that it is more convenient than the use of the passage

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da1088, 95Da1095 delivered on June 13, 1995). B.

In this case, the facts acknowledged as above are examined in light of the above legal principles.