1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall attach attached Form 1,607 square meters to the plaintiff among the 1,607 square meters of the D-si road.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, citing it by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the ground of claim is that the Defendant built the instant building and the main gate and occupied each of the instant roads, and the Plaintiff was obstructed from entering the Plaintiff’s land to his meritorious service, using each of the instant roads, and was obstructed from exercising the Plaintiff’s land ownership.

Therefore, as a removal of interference based on the Plaintiff’s land ownership, traffic right or passage right of surrounding land, the Defendant should remove the instant building and gate to the Plaintiff.

B. The judgment of this court 1) The instant building and gate, for which the Plaintiff seeks removal on the Plaintiff’s claim based on the Plaintiff’s ownership, is located on the land owned by the State or the Defendant, not on the land owned by the Plaintiff. Thus, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff cannot seek removal of the Plaintiff’s ground surface against the Defendant solely on the ground that the Plaintiff’s exclusive use of the land owned by the State or the Defendant, which is adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land, is detrimental to or hindered from the Plaintiff’s right to use, profit-making, disposal, etc. of the Plaintiff’s land. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s claim based on the Plaintiff’s right to passage on the surrounding land is acceptable. (2) The right to passage on the surrounding land is recognized only if there is no passage necessary for the use of the land between the land owned and the public road owned by the Plaintiff, and even if a separate access road exists, if the access road is inappropriate for the use of the relevant land, thereby failing