1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant indicated in the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 1 among the land size of 869 square meters prior to Seosan-si, Seosan-si.

1. Basic facts

A. On Nov. 1, 2004, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to D large 1,580 square meters, E large 14,589 square meters, F large 661 square meters, G large 103 square meters, and H large 306 square meters (hereinafter “the above land owned by the Defendant”). The Defendant leased a building on the land owned by the Defendant or used it as a grain storage place.

On the other hand, on July 7, 2010, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the area of 869 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Around 1968, the Defendant used a road built on a 238 square meters of 4,643 square meters and 20 square meters of 238 square meters of 1,901 square meters of the land owned by the Defendant, which was a contribution to the Defendant’s land, as a road going further to Seosan City I road, which was located on the land owned by the Defendant. However, on March 20, 2008, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking delivery of the above passage route under the Daejeon District Court 2013Kadan15243, Daejeon District Court 2014Kadan50601 to seek confirmation that the Defendant had the right of passage to the above passage route.

[The Daejeon District Court 2013Gadan15243 (Mains), 2014Gadan50601 (Counterclaim), hereinafter “related lawsuit”).

During the course of a lawsuit related to L with the Plaintiff’s approval for land use, L opened a substitute road on the part (A) of 117 square meters in the part (A) connected with each point of the land of this case (hereinafter “the part (A)”) among the land of this case with the Plaintiff’s approval for land use, and the Plaintiff consented to use the part (A) of this case as the passage of the land owned by the Defendant, thereby allowing access to the part (A) of this case from the land owned by the Defendant through the land of this case. The first instance court dismissed the Defendant’s counterclaim on the ground that the Defendant’s right to passage to surrounding land was extinguished due to the construction of a substitute road, and the Defendant appealed, but the appellate court was the Daejeon District Court.