1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the land indicated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”), and the Defendant is the owner of the land indicated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”).

B. On September 16, 2014, the land owned by the Plaintiff was divided into KRW 232/889, and KRW 889, which was owned by the Plaintiff as shares of KRW 657/89, and KRW 889,000,000.

The above land was passed through G road, but the land owned by the plaintiff was not passed through the above road as a result of the division.

C. The Plaintiff’s share 232/889, among the remaining land in Pyeongtaek-si F-si and 657 square meters (hereinafter “instant divided land”) remaining after the division, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of E on November 27, 2014.

Plaintiff

The owned land is 1,037 square meters on the east, 1,037 square meters on the west, 229 square meters on the Defendant’s land, 1,29 square meters on the south, 613 square meters on the south, and 613 square meters on the north-west divided land.

Plaintiff

On the boundary of land owned and the land owned by the defendant, warehouses, buildings and fences (hereinafter “the warehouse buildings and fences of this case”) are installed.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 6, and 3-1-2, the appraiser K's each appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Unless the plaintiff's assertion land is passed, access to the land owned by the plaintiff cannot be made or excessive cost is required. Since the defendant contests the existence of the plaintiff's right to passage over surrounding land owned by the defendant, there is a benefit to seek confirmation.

Furthermore, the warehouse building and fence of this case should be removed because they interfere with the plaintiff's exercise of the right of passage over surrounding land owned by the defendant.

B. In a case where public land, which was formed by the relevant legal doctrine, was partitioned and thus cannot be contributed to a public road, there is only a divided land for the adjoining land, and there is only a right to passage over the surrounding land to another person’s land.