1. The Defendants indicated in the attached Form No. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 29, 4, 5, among the land size of D forest 2,082 square meters in Jinjin-si, the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the evidence No. 1 to No. 8 and the images of the evidence No. 1 to the evidence No. 8, the results of the on-site inspection by this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings as a result of the request for appraisal by the head of the Korea Land

On July 5, 1988, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to F forest and forest land of 18050 square meters, and did not construct a building, including a house, on the above land. At present, only trees are planted on the above land.

B. On May 10, 2005, the Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to shares of 1/2 of E land and D land adjacent to F land, and installed the instant fences to prevent vinyl and wild animals.

C. In addition, the e-mail section is not packed as a road, and the minimum width is about 70 cm, and the Defendants are also using it as a passage.

Meanwhile, F land owned by the Plaintiff is adjacent to G 7736 square meters of G forest land in Jinjin-si. Since F land and G land are constructed in the part where the F land and G land are fully located, a wooden house is to be constructed. Therefore, in order for the Plaintiff to become F land through G land, it is necessary to pass the end of the wooden house.

E. At present, the Plaintiff cannot contribute to the contribution without passing through E land and D land or G land.

2. The right to passage over the surrounding land is a right to restrict the exclusive right to use the surrounding land owner's land and to adjust the understanding between the neighboring land owners. Thus, if people's access and a certain size of goods can only be secured to the extent of public transportation, the place and method of the owner's damage to the surrounding land should be selected, and if it is recognized within the scope of use pursuant to the current method of use of the surrounding land, the passage way should not be set in preparation for the future situation of the use.

(Supreme Court Decision 92Da30528 delivered on December 22, 1992). As to the instant case, it can be seen by the following facts.