1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is not less than 934 square meters in the case of Ansan to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. The Plaintiff owned a 934 square meters of the C river in Ansan-si (hereinafter “instant land”); the Defendant owned a 2,155 square meters adjacent to the instant land (hereinafter “instant adjacent land”); and the Defendant used the 116 square meters of the area in dispute among the instant land as a passage, there is no dispute between the parties.

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the claim of the principal lawsuit, the defendant uses the part of the dispute among the land of this case as a passage, and occupies the above part of the dispute owned by the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver to the plaintiff the part of the dispute over the land of this case 116 square meters, unless there are special circumstances.

In this regard, the defendant's defense to the effect that there was a right to use the above part of the dispute since the defendant acquired the right to use the part of the dispute among the land of this case by prescription, but it is difficult to view that the defendant acquired the right to use the part of the dispute in question by prescription as seen in the following determination of the counterclaim claim, and therefore the above defense

3. The judgment on the counterclaim is the fact that the defendant is the cause of the counterclaim, and the defendant, since the new construction of a residential building and a stable on the neighboring land of this case around August 191, 191, opened a passage and continued to use it as a passage for entry into and exit from the dispute part of the land of this case. Thus, the defendant, after the lapse of 20 years from the date of the new construction, has acquired the passage right on August 31, 201 as to the dispute portion.

The provisions of Article 245 of the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis only to cases where the servitude continues to exist and express, so the owner of the dominant estate who constructed a road on the dominant estate and uses the dominant estate on the dominant estate may be recognized as prescriptive acquisition only when the objective situation which the owner of the dominant estate continues to use it for the period stipulated in Article 245 of the Civil Act. Thus, Supreme Court Decisions 95Da1088,1095 Decided June 13, 1995, Supreme Court Decision 2001Da8493 Decided April 13, 2001, etc.