1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part of “Article 2-b(b)” (Articles 3, 14, and 4, 17) among the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows. Thus, it shall be accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

[Supplementary Use]

B. In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence as seen earlier, Gap evidence Nos. 9, Eul evidence No. 10, Eul evidence No. 10-7, Eul evidence No. 11, Eul evidence No. 12, and Eul evidence No. 12, and the appraisal result and the entire purport of the pleading by the first instance trial appraiser E, it is reasonable to determine that the plaintiff has the right to passage over surrounding land over the part of the Defendant’s land.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated not to interfere with cutting and flat work for the plaintiff's passage and construction of a road in relation to the plaintiff who has the right to passage over surrounding land.

① From the time the registration of ownership transfer was completed with respect to the Plaintiff’s land, the Plaintiff had access to the Plaintiff’s land through the existing access road of this case among the Defendant’s land located between the Plaintiff and the public road of this case for about 19 years from the time the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer to the existing access road of this case.

② The Defendant asserts to the effect that “the Plaintiff arbitrarily used the part of the existing access road of the instant case irrespective of the intention of the former owner of the instant land,” but the circumstance that the Plaintiff raised a special objection against H or his children, H or J, etc., who was the former owner of the instant land during the period of entering the instant land via the existing access road of the instant case for a period of not more than 20 years, is not confirmed, and in particular, K, the owner of the instant land of the instant land, which is the owner of the instant land, Seopo-si District Court Decision 2003No19830.