1. In a case where a private land is naturally occurring or is classified into a proposed road site and actually used as a road for the traffic of the general public, in order to interpret that 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 waives the exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from the land, the following should be comprehensively examined: (a) the circumstance and period he owns the land; (b) the developments and scale of the sale by installments of the remaining land; (c) the location and nature of the land to be used as the road; (d) the relationship with other neighboring land; and (e) the degree of contribution to the land for the effective use and benefit of the remaining land partitioned and sold; and (e) the degree of contribution to the land

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da34206 Decided January 11, 2007). 2. We examine the gist of the reasoning of the lower judgment.

Based on the adopted evidence, the lower court: (a) the land category of the instant land was already changed from forest land on May 31, 1940, the date of acquisition of the Plaintiff’s ownership on May 31, 1940, and (b) the land category of the instant land was changed to a road on December 5, 1972; (c) the land category of the instant land was divided into the part used as a road on December 5, 1972, Ansan-si, Busan-si, and C 86 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land 2”) and D 119 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”) for more than 40 years; and (d) the Plaintiff acquired ownership of each of the instant land on February 17, 1945, the land category of the instant case was changed to a road on December 31, 1940, and the land category was changed from the previous road to October 6, 1986.