B. Criteria to determine whether the owner of a road has renounced his/her right to use and benefit or has given his/her consent to use the road

B. In interpreting the intent that a landowner renounced his/her right to use or profit from the land, or that the landowner gave his/her consent to use or profit from the land, if any, naturally occurring or is actually used as a prospective road site, the determination should be made by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the developments and period of the purchase of the land in question, the details and scale of the divided sale in line with the urban planning line, the location and nature of the land used as a passage, surrounding environment, etc.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the land of this case constitutes a part of a aggregate of six meters wide road, the Defendant was designated as a site for urban planning around 1971, and around 1986 under the supervision of the two-wing-dong offices under the jurisdiction of the Defendant, it was conducted cement Packaging Corporation in the above part (A), and the entire land of this case was formed by neighboring housing members, and was offered for the passage of neighboring residents. The land of this case was divided into the land of this case from 5,018 square meters, which was originally divided into the land of this case to be owned by the lower court for the purpose of sale, and the land of this case was owned by the lower court to be owned by the lower court for the purpose of sale at 1,000,000 which was owned by the lower court for the purpose of sale at 5,000 square meters away from the land of this case to 1,000,0000, which was owned by the lower court for the purpose of sale at 1,000.

In light of the records, the court below is just and correct to recognize that the land of this case designated as a road site only meets the above passage, and it is also effective to increase the utility of surrounding land sold by the plaintiffs due to the above passage, and it is not erroneous in the incomplete hearing or in the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of litigation, in the process of fact-finding.

However, in de facto roads that are not subject to the Road Act, if the State or a local government constructs the roads, or constructs the existing roads, or performs the reconstruction or maintenance works of the roads, such as expansion, road packaging, and sewerage construction, and if they are for public use, such roads shall be deemed under the de facto control of the State or a local government, and possession as a de facto controlling body may be recognized. As determined by the court below, the land of this case was designated as a site for urban planning by the defendant around 1971 and the sewerage installation works were conducted on the part (a) and (b) of the land of this case under the supervision of the defendant around 1986, and if such land was provided for the passage of neighboring residents, the land can be deemed as a de facto controlling body by the defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below erred that the court below did not recognize the defendant's possessor of the land of this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

However, in interpreting the intent that a land owner renounces his right to use and profit from the previous land or actually used as a road as a prospective road site, or that the land owner gave consent to use and profit from the previous land, the land owner should make a decision by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the developments and scale of the land purchased, the details and scale of the divided sale in line with the urban planning line, the location and nature of the land used as a road, surrounding environment, etc. Therefore, the court below's decision that the plaintiffs renounced their right to use and profit from the land of this case and granted their right to use and profit from the surrounding land to the owner, etc. of the land of this case is correct in light of the above determination criteria, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to waiver of the right to use and profit from the land of this case or granting the right to use and profit from the land of this case without compensation, or in the interpretation of the parties' intent.

If it is recognized that the plaintiffs renounced the right to use and benefit from the land of this case or granted the right to use and benefit from the land of this case, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs suffered losses regardless of whether the defendant occupied the land of this case

Therefore, the court below erred that the defendant's possession of the land of this case was not recognized. However, the conclusion that the plaintiffs rejected the plaintiffs' claim of this case is right and wrong, and the arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)