1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected on-site inspection results of the first instance court, which corresponds to the fact that the defendant used the land of this case as a road, and the appraisal report by the appraiser of the first instance court, and held that the land of this case is used as a passage of neighboring residents, and it can be acknowledged that the land of this case is used as a cement package by linking the road with the above road for the convenience of traffic, and thus, it is groundless to claim damages equivalent to the royalty of this case under the premise that the defendant occupied the land of this case as a road, on the premise that the defendant occupied it as a road.

2. However, it is reasonable to view that the adjoining land is actually being used as part of the road, if it is located on the roadside of the road used as the roadway and it is deemed unnecessary to use the road in light of the surrounding environment where the road is located.

Examining the reasoning of the court below, even though it is recognized that the land of this case is connected to the land managed by the defendant, and is used as a delivery as the land located between the road and the riverside buildings, there is no data to recognize that the said land is a land left abandoned as unnecessary vacant land for the use of the road.

In the event that the above mountain corridor passes through an area where a house or a store is concentrated on a road used as a roadway, if it is unnecessary to install a delivery necessary for human traffic between the above road and the roadside building, it shall be deemed that the land of this case is actually being used as part of the road as an appurtenant to the use of the above road, and if the above road itself is sufficiently transferred and it is not necessary to install delivery between the river and the building, it shall be deemed that the land of this case is no longer neglected regardless of the use of the road.

Based on the above point, the court below should have deliberated and confirmed whether the land of this case falls under one of the cases, and should have determined the validity of the plaintiff's claim.

3. After all, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the incomplete hearing and in the violation of the rules of evidence, and this constitutes a ground for reversal of Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)