1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) that orders performance following the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The reasoning of the court’s determination as to the claim for confirmation of the right of passage over surrounding land and the claim for prohibition of interference with passage is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the claim for exclusion of disturbance in the principal lawsuit

A. The reasoning of this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. In order to perform the original function of the right of passage over surrounding land, a structure such as a wall that obstructs the passage of the passage should be removed by the exercise of the above right of passage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da70144, Jun. 2, 2006). Considering the aforementioned evidence and the overall purport of the pleading in the video as to Gap evidence 10, it is reasonable to view the existence of the steel gate installed on the ground of this case as a whole, in a usual manner by the passage of this case, and there is a iron gate installed at the entrance of this case. Although the above gate can be opened and closed, it is difficult for the plaintiff to request the defendant to open the gate if the defendant correct the above gate, and half of the gate is fixed on the passage of this case, and it is deemed that it actually obstructs the passage of the plaintiff, and the existence of the steel gate installed on the ground of this case constitutes a structure that interferes with the passage of the plaintiff.

However, the earth and sand accumulated above the passage of this case seems to have been reto have been retoped to resolve the difference between neighboring land and neighboring land. The mere fact that the passage of the earth and sand is somewhat inconvenient due to the above earth and sand in Ycheon-si does not constitute a building that obstructs passage as its existence itself. Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim for removal of earth and sand is groundless.

Therefore, the Defendant indicated the same drawings among the real estate listed in paragraph (3) of the attached list among the instant land to the Plaintiff.