A. The Plaintiff is an owner of C forest land of 893 square meters in Kimpo-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. From the 1970s to the instant land, there was a road that connects each point of 1,2,3,4,4,5,6, and1 in the form of land centering around the center (hereinafter “instant road”) as shown in the attached drawing, and the general public has used the instant road.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant maintained the drainage route from December 7, 2015 to December 29, 2015, when a civil petition was filed due to the invasion of the instant road, and performed the construction of a container package.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 6, 9 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the cause of the claim can be seen as dividing the form of possession of a road management authority into possession and possession as a de facto controller. In a case where the determination of the route approval under the Road Act, the road management authority’s possession is determined, or where the road is constructed by the implementation of an urban planning project under the Urban Planning Act, the occupation of the road management authority can be recognized starting from that time. In a case where the State or a local government, even though there was no act of construction of a road under the Road Act, was performed for the purpose of public traffic by performing the reconstruction or maintenance of a road, such as expansion of the existing road, packing, or installation of sewerage system, etc., and the State or a local government, even if there was no act of construction of a road under the Road Act, possession as a de facto controller can be deemed as having been under the control of the State or a local government (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da58216, Jun. 29, 195).

Facts determined and publicly announced as urban planning facilities.