[토지사용료][공1974.11.15.(500),8056]
Whether the Seoul Special Metropolitan City may be deemed to have occupied and managed a road, if the packaging work was conducted by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, if the purchaser of the housing site and any other person within the housing site have granted the right to free access to the road leading to the land adjacent to the housing site as a contribution to the road.
With the sale of land in installments according to the current cadastral map, each of the instant lands has been used as a road leading to the contribution of residents occupying the said land without selling it, and even if the Defendant market performed the packing work, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant occupied and managed it.
Articles 192 and 741 of the Civil Act, Article 2 of the Road Act
[Judgment of the court below]
Attorney Tae-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Seoul High Court Decision 72Na2875 delivered on June 29, 1973
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment, the court below acknowledged that the above land was owned by the non-party who was originally enclosed by the plaintiff on the road, which is the land of this case, and the above land was used as a road through which the residents living in the above sold land without selling it in accordance with the current cadastral map between December 13, 1937 and June 30, 1941. Since the above land was owned by the non-party who was originally owned by the plaintiff on the road of this case, the court below held that the above land was used by the non-party 1 for the purpose of using the above new road as a package for the purpose of using the new road of this case, and that the above land was occupied by the non-party 1 to October 1968, the defendant had to bear half the expenses, and thus, it cannot be concluded that there was a violation of the rules of evidence and that the non-party's land was occupied by the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 had no authority to use the above land for the purpose of using the new road.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)