The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1.It is not allowed to waive the ability of the owner to use and make profits belonging to the core competences unless there are special circumstances.

This is because it is against the legal principle of real rights under the Civil Code because only the disposal authority eventually creates a new type of ownership that remains.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da228, 235 Decided March 26, 2009, etc.). Therefore, in a case where private land is used as a road for the traffic of the general public, if a landowner voluntarily provides a part of the land as a road site, barring any special circumstance, it should be deemed that the landowner would waive the right to use and benefit from the land, or would not temporarily exercise the right to use and benefit from the land, in relation to the persons who have been provided free of charge on the road site, rather than to waive the right to use and benefit from

In interpreting the intent of a landowner to waive his/her right to use and benefit from the land, the following should be considered in full view of the following: (a) the details and period of ownership of the land; (b) the details and scale of selling the remaining land in installments; (c) the location and nature of the land to be used as the road; (d) the relationship with neighboring land; and (e) the surrounding environment; and (e) the degree of contribution to the land for the effective

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da31736, May 12, 2006). 2. Review of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

C on December 5, 1968, purchased Jeonsung-gun D land including the instant land, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 27, 1969.

B. Around 1971, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) opened a road by expanding a narrow channel abutting on the above D land. The instant land was divided into the said D land on August 24, 1971, and land category.