1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff is an owner of a Lousan-si Lousan-si 495 square meters, its ground buildings, and the 3,045 square meters prior to M.

The Defendant is an owner of 3,216 square meters in the vicinity of the land owned by the Plaintiff, 7,166 square meters in the F, 483 square meters in the G, 340 square meters in the H, 4,060 square meters in the H, 3,06 square meters in the first place, 3,835 square meters in the J, and 63,51 square meters in the J, forest and field.

B. The land and M land owned by the Plaintiff was one parcel of 3,549 square meters prior to the division (hereinafter “instant land before the division”).

The Plaintiff purchased the land before the instant subdivision from N around December 2005, and then divided the land as of the present.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), summary of the plaintiff's argument as a whole

A. The Plaintiff purchased the instant land from N before the subdivision and the access road is necessary. As such, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant the following specific land (hereinafter referred to as “the access road of this case,” including each part of the land indicated in paragraph (1) of the claim, as stated in paragraph (1) of the claim, with the width of 4 meters, via a survey. Accordingly, the Defendant issued a written consent on the use of the instant access road to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Plaintiff has the right to access to the access road of this case.

B. Nevertheless, the Defendant interfered with the Plaintiff’s passage of the access road of this case by installing fences, etc. on the access road of this case and interfering with the Plaintiff’s repair work, and thus, sought confirmation of the right of passage and prohibition of interference with passage, as stated in the purport

Judgment

A. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in subparagraphs 6-3 and 4, the defendant received KRW 10,000,000 from N and used as a road from the plaintiff, it can be acknowledged that the defendant consented to the use of the access road to approximately 2.5m wide in width on each land owned by the defendant (hereinafter "existing access road of this case").

On the other hand, this Court's findings of inspection.