1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. On March 2, 2012, Defendant B’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (hereinafter “Defendant B”) purchased 1,984 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) out of 906 square meters and 1,670 square meters, which was owned by the Plaintiff, from the Plaintiff, in order to allow the Plaintiff to enter the said land, the Plaintiff’s land and the instant land were leased from Defendant B with the knowledge of the terms of the instant traffic permission agreement.

Nevertheless, on March 22, 2016, the Defendants interfered with the Plaintiff’s passage of the instant land to the instant land to transport containers to the said F-land, and thereby, incurred damages equivalent to KRW 750,000 of the additional construction cost to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendants are liable to pay to each Plaintiff KRW 750,00 and damages for delay.

2. The judgment is based on the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff and Defendant B agreed to permit the instant traffic; (b) Defendant C, who leased the instant land and the instant building from Defendant B, interfered with the Plaintiff’s passage to and transport of containers on the instant land, using the instant land on the Ler; (c) there is no dispute between the parties; (d) as to whether Defendant B, at the time of the instant traffic permission agreement, could allow the Plaintiff to pass the instant land by using Lerler, the following circumstances are acknowledged by the health stand, Eul’s Nos. 1, 2, and 6 (including the serial number); and (e) the overall purport of visual and oral arguments, namely, ① the said F land is classified as “the entire land” and the said F land was classified as “the farming house at the time of the instant traffic permission agreement; and (b) the Plaintiff is allowed to enter the said FF land even with its own land adjacent to F, not the instant land; and (c) the Plaintiff.