The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The court below did not recognize the land of this case as a Gun road under Article 17 of the Road Act or a road constructed under an urban planning project under the Urban Planning Act, and recognized it as a road actually under the control and management of the defendant city, a local government, as a road not subject to the Road Act, etc., it is obvious by the reasons for the judgment

In de facto roads that are not subject to the Road Act, etc., it is difficult to see the de facto controlling body of the roads as the State or a local government, unless the State or a local government bears a substantial portion of the construction cost and recognizes the circumstances such as the maintenance and repair of the roads and the public being in charge of the maintenance and repair of the roads after construction, etc. However, if the State or a local government constructs the roads or constructs the existing roads after construction, or performs repair and maintenance works, such roads shall be deemed to be under the de facto control of the State or a local government, and shall be deemed to be under its possession and management (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Da5795, Mar. 12, 191).

In accordance with the evidence duly examined and adopted, the court below recognized that the land of this case constitutes part of the asphalt Packaging road with a width of 12 meters in front of the community credit cooperatives in Ansan-si as of September 29, 1975. The defendant determined the land of this case as an urban planning facility (road) and completed the cadastral approval and public notice as to the above urban planning on December 31, 198, but the above urban planning was notified as of September 27, 1990 again, the procedure for the urban planning of this case is no longer being followed, such as determination of modification of the urban planning facility of this case, cadastral approval and public notice as to the above urban planning facility, and the defendant had no further passed through the road of this case, including the land of this case, since 1984 after packaging the land of this case, and had no such unlawful determination as to the road of this case as to the maintenance and repair of the road of this case as of September 27, 1998.

In addition, the lower court is also justifiable to have rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant had given a waiver of exclusive rights to use and benefit from the instant land by the decedent. The argument is without merit.

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

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice) Park Young-dong Kim Jong-ho