1. Indication (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (v), (vi), (vii), (vii), and (8), of the annexed drawings among the area of 732 square meters of C road in the time of harmony to the Plaintiff.

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff is the owner of D Forest land, E forest land, 856 square meters, 5839 square meters in F forest, G forest land, 1293 square meters in G forest, and 1026 square meters in H forest (hereinafter “instant land”). The Defendant is the owner of C Road 732 square meters in land (hereinafter “instant land”).

Of the Plaintiff’s land, E-856 square meters of forest land, G 1293 square meters of forest land is affiliated with 1447 square meters of forest land owned by the Defendant, and J 1024 square meters of forest land owned by the Defendant. Each land owned by the Defendant is affiliated with 160 square meters of forest land, L40 square meters, M 224 square meters of forest land owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the said K 160 square meters of forest land is affiliated with the Defendant’s land.

In June 2014, the Defendant agreed to use the road to obtain permission for development activities, etc. from the Plaintiff with respect to K forest land of 160 square meters, L 40 square meters, M forest land of 224 square meters.

On November 14, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant obtained permission to engage in development activities for the purpose of site creation by entering a Class II neighborhood living facilities with respect to the area of 910 square meters of D forest, 160 square meters of K forest, L 440 square meters of land, and 224 square meters of M forest.

On January 30, 2015, the Plaintiff completed a construction report for the construction of Class II neighborhood living facilities with respect to the area of 910 square meters of D forest land, E 856 square meters of forest land, G forest land, and 1293 square meters of forest land in the Seongbuk market.

The Defendant’s land is a road that was packed and opened by the Defendant for the operation of the auto-scrapping, and is used as a road for the Defendant’s business, and is the only passage to the Plaintiff’s land.

However, the defendant has prevented the plaintiff's passage due to the method of parking a lot of vehicles on the defendant's land of this case thickly.

[Ground of recognition] If there is no passage necessary for the use of the surrounding land between the land and the public service to determine the overall purport of the pleading, the owner of the land can not access to the public service without passing over the surrounding land or passage to the public service, without passing over the surrounding land.