The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are dismissed in entirety.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Plaintiff A is the owner of a building with a lot number of 514 square meters prior to I, Plaintiff C is the owner of a building with a lot of 161 square meters and its ground, Plaintiff C is the owner of a building with a lot of 161 square meters in JJ and Plaintiff D, and Plaintiff D is the owner of a building with a lot of 245 square meters in K.

(B) each of the above real estate owned by the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs of this case").

Land 298 square meters (hereinafter “instant Defendants’ land”) are under the name of the network M, and Defendant E is the wife of the network M, and Defendant F is the live of the network M.

C. The location of the plaintiffs' real estate and the defendants' land of this case is as shown in the attached Form.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4-1, 7, 8-1, 5-7, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiffs: (a) prevented the Defendants from using part of the Defendants’ land in this case as a way leading to their contribution from the Plaintiffs’ real estate; (b) led to the decline in the market price due to the Plaintiff’s lack of access to the instant real estate; and (c) sought damages against the Defendants for the decline in real estate value.

The records and images of evidence Nos. 1 through 11 are insufficient to recognize that the plaintiffs have the right to passage over surrounding land among the Defendants’ land. Since there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants’ failure to provide the Plaintiffs with part of the Defendants’ land for the purpose of passage constitutes tort.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are without merit without further review.

Rather, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1, Plaintiff A, B, and C seek against the Defendants the confirmation of the right to passage over surrounding land and the prohibition of interference with passage by the court as to part of the Defendants’ land in this case.