1. The Defendant indicated in the attached Form No. 5, 6, 7, 8, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, among the 3,48 square meters in the land for the stock farm in Jung-gu, Jung-gu.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an owner of a building with a size of 370 square meters and a forest of 359 square meters (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiff’s land”) in Jung-gu, Jung-gu (hereinafter referred to as “Duri”) and is residing on the ground.

B. The Defendant is the owner of C,488 square meters of land for a stock farm (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).

C. In order to reach a contribution from the Plaintiff’s land at present by using a vehicle, the part as indicated in paragraph (1) of the order of the Defendant’s land should pass through the Defendant’s land (hereinafter “instant passage”).

[Ground of recognition] Each description or image of Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, 6, 7, and 8 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for confirmation of the right of passage over surrounding land

A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff has the right to passage over surrounding land among the Defendant’s land.

B. The plaintiff asserts that "the defendant's land has a right of passage over surrounding land as to the entire part indicated in the annexed drawing."

However, the scope of the right of passage over surrounding land is necessary for the person with the right of passage, and it should be recognized within the scope of the place and method with the lowest damage to the owner of surrounding land

(1) In light of the aforementioned circumstances, it is reasonable to determine the width of the road below 3 meters, taking into account the following: (a) the location and shape of the road in this case; (b) the length; (c) the Plaintiff’s main method of passage; (d) the Plaintiff’s main method of passage; and (e) the vicinity of the line that connects each point specified in the separate drawing Nos. 5, 6, and 7, among the part claimed by the Plaintiff, appears to have been used as a marina by the Defendant.

C. As to this, the defendant is against the passage of this case, "it may be contributed by the plaintiff through other ways than the passage of this case or the land owned by the defendant," or the passage of this case to the future.