1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim extended at the trial room, shall be modified as follows:

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 3,207 square meters prior to Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”). The Defendant is the owner of F farm site of 1,860 square meters, C road of 156 square meters, and 130 square meters prior to D. (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).

B. The Plaintiff sets up a farm shed on the Plaintiff’s land, and the Defendant operates a stable on the Defendant’s land.

C. The Plaintiff’s land shall not enter the road to the north and west of G, the Ham the south, the south and west of H, the J, K forest, L, etc. without passing through the surrounding land.

The Plaintiff, among the Defendant’s land, has access to the Plaintiff’s land using the part (B) size of the part (A), which was connected in order to each point of 3 through 16, and 3 of the attached Form No. 3 among the 156 square meters of the attached Form No. 156 square meters of the land among the Defendant’s land, and the part (A), 2, 3, 16 through 20, and 1 of the attached Form No. 130 square meters of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 16 through 20, among the 130 square meters of the attached Form No. 156 square meters of the attached Form No. 3 to the Defendant’s land. Since 20

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry and video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including each number if there is a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the on-site inspection by the court of the first instance, the result of the request for surveying and appraisal by the Korea Land Information Corporation Kimcheon branch of Kim Jong-cheon, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff had a farming shed in the Plaintiff’s land and had access to a public road through the surrounding land of this case since the Defendant interfered with the passage of the surrounding land of this case, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of the right to passage over the surrounding land of this case and prohibition of interference with the Plaintiff’s passage over the surrounding land of this case.

B. If the Plaintiff used the surrounding land of this case as a passage, it would inflict a significant damage on the stable operated by the Defendant.

In addition, the plaintiff is also the plaintiff.