1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall consist of a principal lawsuit and a preliminary counterclaim.

1. The Plaintiff is the owner of B 1,491 square meters (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s land”). The Defendant and the designated parties are co-owners of each real estate listed in the attached Table of Real Estate List.

The Defendant and the designated parties set up a boundary mark in order to connect each point of the land listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 of the real estate list (hereinafter “Defendant land of this case”) and the land of this case, which is adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3 (including each number), video of Gap evidence 3 and 6 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings as a result of the on-site inspection by this court

2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion was made impossible to enter the Defendant’s land without passing through the Defendant’s land, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of the right to passage over the Defendant’s land and removal of the boundary list against the Defendant.

B. The defendant's assertion asserts that the plaintiff could not respond to the plaintiff's claim, since the plaintiff could pass through a meritorious road with the land C and D or the land E and 50,892 square meters adjacent to the plaintiff's land of this case.

C. The right of passage over surrounding land, as stipulated in Article 219 of the Civil Act, is particularly recognized to be at risk of causing damage to the owner of the right of passage for the public interest, which is the use of land without a passage necessary for its use, between the public interest and the public interest. Thus, in determining the width, location, etc. of the route, the method with less damage to the owner of the right of passage should be considered. However, at least the scope necessary for the use of the land owned by the right of passage should be permitted, and the degree of necessity should be considered as necessary according to social norms in a specific case.