1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff has the right of passage over surrounding land with respect to the 61m3m2 in Cheong-do, Cheongbuk-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

2. The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 1,230 square meters (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s land”).

The Plaintiff’s land is not adjacent to the public service and is able to contribute to the Plaintiff’s land adjacent to another person’s ownership. As such, the Plaintiff has entered the land with a contribution via C-Y, C, 61 square meters adjacent to the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).

B. In the long-term form of the Defendant’s land in this case, the land category was cement packaging even though it was a land category, and in fact, it was used as the passage of the Plaintiff, etc. as above. However, the Plaintiff’s passage is not smooth due to disputes between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

C. Of the land adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land, the Plaintiff applied for the construction of a road in part of a ditch on November 2015, on the site of the building or the ditch (owned by the State) on the land other than the Defendant’s land, but it was confirmed that there was no hindrance to flowing water.

It is not appropriate to use as a passage, because it is located at a place lower than a slope.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry or image of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number), the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s land in this case is surrounded by another’s land and needs to pass over another’s land in order to reach a contribution, and that there is a difference between the Plaintiff’s land and the Plaintiff’s land, other than the Defendant’s land, already being used for other purposes, or there is a difference between the Plaintiff’s land and the Plaintiff’s land, the Defendant’s land in this case has an adequate form as a passage, and has already been used as a passage of the Plaintiff’s land, and there is no other function, it is reasonable to authorize the Plaintiff’s right to pass over the surrounding land to the Defendant’

3. Conclusion