The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

According to Article 6-2 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Compensation for Loss of Land, de facto private road to which the regulation on the assessment of private roads under Article 6-2 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Compensation for Loss of Land refers to a road that a landowner has established for the convenience of his own land, and even if a part of the land is granted to many unspecified persons for a certain period, it does not constitute an area of land in which a landowner may exercise his ownership and prohibit passage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da25045, Nov. 10, 1992; 93Da2

As duly determined by the court below, since the land of this case was incorporated into a road construction scheduled site under the Urban Planning Act according to the city planning of the original city of the defendant, and the use of surrounding land, such as division of a site or construction of a new building, naturally passed through the urban planning line, is naturally used as a road by neighboring residents. If the construction of road construction was commenced and completed on the land of this case in order to execute the construction of an access road to the city of the city of the defendant, the land of this case does not immediately constitute a private road under the above Enforcement Rule, and even if examining records, it cannot be deemed that the land of this case is a private road under the above Enforcement Rule. Thus, the decision of the court below that did not regard the land of this case as a private road under the above Enforcement Rule is correct, and there is no error of law such as theory of lawsuit, etc.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)