1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's lawsuit corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed;

1. Basic facts

A. F is a road connected to Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do, the Plaintiff’s land owned by neighboring residents, including 3,663 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), to I (the central line is marked, and the asphalt package is installed as a facility for the prevention of drums) of Gyeonggi-do.

B. Of the instant land, the part on the ship connecting each point of the following items, 14, 40, 29, 28, 28, 43, 42, 41, 15, and 14, among the land in this case (hereinafter “the first part on dispute”) constitutes part of F.

C. At the time of the Plaintiff’s new construction of E, “E, a swine breeding farm, on the instant land, the Sicheon-gun implemented concrete packaging construction works on the first industrial dispute of this case at the Plaintiff’s request.

The Defendant is an owner of the Gyeonggi-do G Forest G, Gyeonggi-gun, G Forest, 918 square meters in the vicinity of the instant land, and the building construction is being implemented on the said land. At present, the said construction is currently passing through I via the first mountain dispute part in the instant case.

E. Meanwhile, among the land in this case, the part on board connecting each point of the separate sheet No. 25, 26, 27, 28, 43, 44, 45, and 25 (hereinafter “the second part on dispute”) among the land in this case is an entry route connecting “E” and the first part on dispute in this case.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1-1, result of on-site inspection by the court of first instance, result of the measurement and appraisal commission by the court of first instance on the Korea Land Information Corporation, result of inquiry and reply to the head of the Si/Gun of the Si/Gun of the Si/Gun of the Si/Gun

2. The Defendant asserts that the part concerning the second dispute of this case concerning the No. 2 dispute of this case does not have any dispute between the parties because there is no means for the Defendant to claim the right of passage, and that the part seeking the confirmation of the absence of the Defendant’s right of passage concerning the second dispute of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

the records. The records shall be accepted.