The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne individually by each person.

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff operates a restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant, etc.”) while residing in each of the above buildings as the owner of land D, E (hereinafter “D land, etc.”) and above-ground buildings in Pakistan-si. The Defendant is the owner of F, C, G, H each land and its ground buildings.

B. From F and C land, the Plaintiff has used the road-shaped part (hereinafter “instant site”) connecting each point of F and C with each point of 3,4,5,6, and 3 as indicated below (hereinafter “the instant site”).

CDF

C. On January 15, 2016, the Defendant acquired the ownership of each land F, C, G, and H, and installed a steel pents, etc. making it impossible to pass through the instant part of the land. As a result, the Defendant was convicted of a fine of KRW 500,000 on the ground of interference with general traffic (Korean District Court Decision 2018No254 Decided December 11, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed a provisional disposition with the purport that the Plaintiff should not remove the pents and steel structure installed by the Defendant and interfere with the Plaintiff’s passage (Seoul District Court Order 2019Kahap 5602, Jan. 9, 2020). E. The Defendant removed steel pents, etc. installed in F and H after the above provisional disposition was issued, and installed container stuffs on the ground at which the part of the ship connected F and H in sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 on the ground.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In light of the current status of the Plaintiff’s use of land D and E, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the parties requires access to the instant site to the housing and restaurant owned by the Plaintiff and the customers visiting the restaurant operated by the Plaintiff through the instant lawsuit, and the Plaintiff’s right to access the surrounding land should be recognized to the extent that the Plaintiff’s access to gas vehicles, buses, and construction vehicles, etc. for the development of land owned by the Plaintiff for the operation of the Plaintiff restaurant.