1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim added by this court is dismissed.

3. Action.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 1, 2002, the Plaintiff purchased the land No. 1 and the stable building constructed on the land, other than the land No. 1, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 17, 2002. On December 17, 2002, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for 1/2 shares out of the land No. 2.

B. On July 26, 2016, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer based on each trade with respect to the remaining 1/2 shares and 1,726 square meters prior to E at the time of residence, which are not owned by the Plaintiff among the land No. 2, the Defendant.

C. On September 23, 2016, the said E-M volume of 1,726 square meters was divided into the land and 60 square meters prior to H.

On September 29, 2016, the Defendant entered into an exchange contract with I on the part of H on an exchange with the fourth land, and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the exchange with I on October 5, 2016 on the part of H 60 square meters prior to H, and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the exchange with respect to the fourth land on the same day. At that time, the Defendant installed iron gate (hereinafter “instant pent”) on the part of the line connecting each point of No. 3 and No. 26, 27, 28, and 29 on the 3 and No. 4.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 4, 7 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant purchased the third land that is a franchisor and experienced conflicts with the Plaintiff to establish an access road on July 2016, and secured the passage of the third land by purchasing 1/2 shares out of the second land and securing the passage of the third land. After that, the Plaintiff installed the instant pen without any title to the first land owned by the Plaintiff and the second land owned by the Defendant and without any title to the land owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, thereby hindering the Plaintiff from passing through the residential area and the first land in the instant axis.

Therefore, with respect to the land of Article 1, the plaintiff is a claim for exclusion of disturbance based on ownership under Article 214 of the Civil Code, and with respect to the land of Article 265 of the Civil Code.