The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, where a certain private land is assigned as a naturally occurring or proposed road site and is actually being used as a road for the purpose of the public traffic, if the owner of the land grants the right to free traffic to neighboring residents or the general public by providing the land as a road, or expresses his/her intent to grant exclusive and exclusive use and profit-making rights to the land, the ground why he/she owned the land in question or its holding period, the situation and scale of selling the remaining land in installments, the location and nature of the land to be used as the road, relationship with neighboring land, surrounding environment, etc., and the degree of contribution to the remaining land in question shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following factors:

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da7286 Decided September 24, 2004). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff could not be deemed to have renounced the exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from the No. 1,4, and 5 land.

Examining the records in accordance with the above legal principles, such determination by the court below is just, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles regarding the waiver of the right to exclusive use and benefit by the landowner, or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

2. The ground of appeal No. 1, 4, and 5 as to the ground of appeal No. 2 has been used as a road for not less than 20 years until now, and the ground that the Plaintiff did not exercise any right to the claim of this case cannot be said to contravene the nomenclature principle or the principle of good faith.

In the judgment of the court below, there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the principle of speech or good faith.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.