1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B connects each point in the attachment No. 60, 59, 1, 2, 3, and 4 in sequence.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From April 23, 2003, the Plaintiff owned 3,391 square meters (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s land”) prior to F. 3,39 square meters in Won-si, and cultivated crops in the above land.

B. Defendant B is the owner of 3,765 square meters (hereinafter “the Defendant’s land”) prior to D, Hanju-si, one adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land, and Defendant C is the owner of 1,779 square meters and G river 46 square meters.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s land is surrounded by another’s land, and the Plaintiff is part of the Defendant’s land adjacent to the said Plaintiff’s land, part of the H river owned by the Republic of Korea, and the Plaintiff’s land above.

part of the land owned by the Defendant C as described in the subsection (A).

The river status standard line on the port (hereinafter referred to as the "river standard line of this case") has reached the contribution by using neighboring passage routes.

(Ground for recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, 6, and 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Defendant B’s main defense against Defendant B’s main safety and its determination guarantee Defendant B’s way of passage to the extent that the Plaintiff could use and pass for the present usage. As such, Defendant B asserts that the present method of passage does not present any apprehension or risk of the Plaintiff’s legal status, and thus, the instant lawsuit has no benefit of confirmation.

However, as seen below, insofar as there is a dispute between the Plaintiff and Defendant B on the location or width of the passage through which the Plaintiff could pass, the instant lawsuit cannot be deemed as having no interest in confirmation, and thus, Defendant B’s aforementioned principal safety defense is without merit.

3. Determination as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B

A. The main point of the party’s assertion is that the Plaintiff primarily sought the primary claim, which is the part of the above Defendant’s land, from the cadastral line to the public road, to allow traffic like truck from the Plaintiff’s land of this case to the public road.