beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance, including any addition or exchange modification by this court, is as follows.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 20, 1994, K, the Defendant’s father, completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of Suwon District Court’s Sung-gun’s Sung-gun’s Ma 1,129 square meters, which was received on April 20, 1994, and on March 25, 1996, the said land was converted into 1,129 square meters of L forest land into 1,129 square meters on March 25, 1996, and was divided into 769 square meters of L, 151 square meters of N, and 209 square meters of J forest.
B. On October 9, 1996, the land category of J-gun J-gun was changed to a road, and the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on the donation of the same date under No. 10238, May 15, 2015, with respect to the real estate, the land category of which is changed as above, as stated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”).
C. Part of the instant land is being used as a passage through which the village residents pass, which is a cement package.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap’s 1 through 3 (including a Serial number), Eul’s 5 and 6, or the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiffs' claims
A. Since K, the father of the Defendant, expressed his intention to lose the land of this case used as a road for a long time since around 1996, the Defendant, a specific successor to the land of this case, may not exercise the exclusive right to use and benefit from the land of this case.
B. However, although the land of this case is partially destroyed cement and needs re-exploiting construction, the defendant refused to accept such consent and thereby hindering the plaintiffs who are village residents from performing re-exploiting construction of the land of this case.
C. Accordingly, the plaintiffs seek confirmation against the defendant that the land of this case was abandoned the exclusive right to use and benefit from the road, and seek confirmation that the plaintiffs of this case were entitled to use the land of this case as a road for which exclusive use and benefit from the land of this case has been renounced. The plaintiffs are the ones subject to