1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Case history

A. B filed a building report to construct 4 detached houses on the ground of 3,464 square meters of forest C in the petition-gu, Cheongju-si (hereinafter “instant land”) from August 2017 to four times, in order to build 4 detached houses on the ground, and the Defendant accepted each building report as follows (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

On August 22, 2017, the new construction of a site area of a building site on the date of subdivision repair shall be conducted on August 22, 2017, on May 6660, 97, May 97, 2017, May 660, 97, May 10, 2017, May 660, 97, May 10, 2017, December 21, 2017, 85, May 5, 2017, June 5, 2018.

B. Thereafter, on April 16, 2018, B completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land No. 1 based on sale to D.

C. On August 1, 2018, D changed the owner of each of the instant dispositions to “D” from “B” to “D,” and the Defendant accepted the said change report on December 4, 2018.

On the other hand, the land of this case 1 is so-called "master land" and in order to become a meritorious service in the above land, the part of the land (a) on the ship (hereinafter "the road of this case") connected each point of the attached Table 1 to 8 and 1 among the land of Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si (hereinafter "the land of this case 2") owned by E and the G 4,426 square meters of G forest owned by the plaintiff, as shown in the attached Form 1.

E. At present, the passage of this case is currently being used as a concrete package for H residing on the ground of this case’s land No. 2 as a passage to and from the public road by I.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 10 (including evidence number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 13, and 14, the purport of the whole statement or video and oral argument

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The case where the Defendant’s main defense does not meet the contact requirement under Article 44(1) of the Building Act, allowing the Defendant to build the housing on the land of this case.