1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. All costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the following “the part which is dismissed or added.” Therefore, this Court’s ruling is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. From 7th of the judgment of the court of first instance to 8th of the first instance, the parts which are dismissed or added are as follows: (a) to 3rd of the judgment of the court of first instance.

According to the evidence Nos. 5, 23, and 24-1, and 24-2, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against K to confirm the right to passage over surrounding land. On January 30, 2018, the Daejeon District Court rendered a judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' claims (Seng District Court Decision 2017Kadan2160, 53830, 5380). The plaintiffs appealed against the Daejeon District Court Decision 2018Na1030, 1030, 10397 (Counterclaim). The Daejeon District Court rendered a judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' claims that have been changed on March 20, 2019, which became final and conclusive at that time (the Daejeon District Court Decision 2018Na103080, 103097 (Counterclaim).

However, according to the results of the fact-finding by the court of first instance as to Seosan-si, it seems possible to divide the part to open a private road or the part to be abolished as a road into a neighboring land into a minimum of 60 square meters. In the lawsuit to confirm the right of passage over surrounding land, there are land owned by the defendant between the land owned by the plaintiffs and the land owned by the defendant, and the land owned by the plaintiffs and the defendant are not adjoining to the land owned by the plaintiffs since the lawsuit to cancel the ownership of this case is not finalized, the plaintiffs claim the right of passage over surrounding land by opening a new passage rather than the existing passage through the land owned by the plaintiffs, and the land owned by the plaintiffs seems to be neglected without using the land owned by the plaintiffs.