1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the removal shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall make the plaintiff roads C, Hanam-gun, Hanam-gun, 1.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where “the steel fence (hereinafter “this case’s fence”) was installed on the instant site” as “the steel fence was installed on the boundary of the instant site and its neighboring land” (hereinafter “this case’s fence”) as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this part is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes not only the Plaintiff’s ownership of the instant land, the right to passage over surrounding land, but also the tort that infringes the Plaintiff’s freedom of passage, etc., and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for damages equivalent to the removal of the wall and the rent therefrom.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the wall of this case was not affected by the Plaintiff’s land, and the Plaintiff acquired the land of this case with the knowledge that the site of this case was used by the apartment residents as a road used by the general public. Thus, the Defendant did not interfere with the Plaintiff’s exercise of ownership.

In addition, since the plaintiff can pass through the land of this case through the land of this case, the right to passage over the surrounding land of this case cannot be acknowledged merely because access roads are needed to the building permit for the construction of the future building. Since the wall of this case was installed by the defendant with legitimate approval for use from Haak-gun to use the land of this case as the access road to the apartment complex and the commercial building within the apartment complex, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's removal

3. Determination

(a) Any person wishing to pass through a road offered for the general public in determining the removal request shall have the right to that road by another person.