(b) The case holding that a landowner has granted the right of free traffic to the general public where the land designated and publicly announced as a planned road site is actually being used as a road;

(b) The case holding that a landowner has granted the right of free traffic to the general public where the land designated and publicly announced as a planned road site is actually being used as a road;

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

In a case where a certain private land is actually used for the general traffic according to a change in the surrounding environment after it was incorporated into a land scheduled for a road, if the landowner renounces his right to use and profit from the land or appears to have given his permission for the use of the road, it shall be determined carefully by comprehensively considering the following: the reasons why the land was owned by him; the developments or scale of the divided sale in line with the urban planning line; the details or scale of the land used as a road; the location and nature of the land used as a road; the relationship with other neighboring land; the surrounding environment; and the degree of contribution to the land for the effective use and profit of the remaining land sold by division.

However, as shown in the facts established by the court below in this case, when purchasing 10,601 square meters from the non-party on December 23, 1971 to 8 parcels of Guro-gu Seoul ( Address 1 through 8 omitted). The part of the above land ( Address 2 omitted) was already 46 square meters and 897 square meters, which was already designated and publicly notified as a site under the Urban Planning Act by the defendant on January 18, 1969. The plaintiff acquired the above land as well as 3,020 square meters from the above land purchased on April 30, 1975. The plaintiff divided it into 42 lots of land to purchase 19 square meters from the non-party on December 29, 197. The part of the above land which was first purchased on the non-party 1 and the part which was first purchased on the non-party 1 to 97 square meters for the purpose of selling it to 3,026 square meters, and (3) the above part of the above land was omitted.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the waiver of the right to use and benefit without evidence or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to unjust enrichment, as in the theory of lawsuit, as in the judgment of the court below. The party members pointed out in the theory of lawsuit

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

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)