1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The Defendant indicated the attached Form No. 1 and No. 7408 square meters to the Plaintiff prior to Ycheon-si.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 19, 2018, the Plaintiff cultivated agricultural crops on the ground of the said land after completing the registration of transfer in the name of the Plaintiff with respect to the land of 2909 square meters (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s land”).

B. The Defendant is the owner of C previously 7408 square meters adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “instant Defendant’s land”).

C. The Plaintiff’s land is surrounded by the Defendant’s land, etc. as indicated below, and there is no passage leading to a contribution.

C E [Grounds for recognition] entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The key point of the Plaintiff’s claim is that the Plaintiff has the right to passage over the Defendant’s land adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land without any passage from the Plaintiff’s land to the public road, and that the Plaintiff seeks confirmation of the right to passage over the surrounding land, as to the part indicated in the attached Form No. 1 (b).

3. Determination

A. 1) In a case where there is no passage between a certain land and a public road for the use of the surrounding land, if the owner of the surrounding land could not have access to the surrounding land at all without passing through or passing through the surrounding land, the owner of the surrounding land is entitled to have access to the surrounding land, which is allowed to construct a passage if necessary, pursuant to Article 219 of the Civil Act. In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the survey and appraisal entrusted to the head office of the Chungcheongbuk-gu Headquarters in the Republic of Korea National Land Information Corporation, the Plaintiff’s land in this case has no passage between the surrounding land and the public road, and there is no passage necessary for the use of the surrounding land, and if the surrounding land other than the Defendant’s land is used as a passage to a public road, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff has a right to passage to the surrounding land as to a considerable range of