(b) Standards for determining whether the State or a local government occupies a road constructed in the form of a resident self-help project;

(c) A case which has failed to examine a road, in fact, even though it is probable to view that the landowner has given the right to use and benefit exclusively from the road and has given the right to passage free of charge;

B. If a person other than the State or a local government actually constructs a road as a self-help project, or a person actually constructs, repairs, or repairs or repairs the existing road, it is difficult to regard the person in charge of the de facto control of the road as the State or a local government. However, even if the road is constructed in the form of a self-help project, if it is acknowledged that the State or a local government bears a substantial portion of the construction cost and is in charge of the maintenance and repair of the road after the completion of the construction, and is in common use for public traffic, it can be deemed that the road is actually under the control of the State or a local government. Therefore, the determination of the occupancy of the State or a local government by examining the above circumstances and the fact that the State or a local government bears part of the construction cost

C. The case holding that the examination has not been sufficiently conducted even though there is room to view that the landowner has given the right to exclusive use and benefit to the road and the right to free use and benefit.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the Defendant’s construction of cement 145 square meters or more on the above 140-meter portion of the land at 145 square meters, and the fact that the ownership transfer registration was made in the Plaintiff’s future on January 29, 1986 and the above land was formed as the present road. According to such macroficial evidence, the Plaintiff purchased large area of 743 square meters in Songpa-gu ( Address 2 omitted) around June 5, 197 and then divided the above land into eight lots, which were planned to be part of the above land as a road by urban planning, and thus, it is difficult for the Defendant to use or manage the above 7-meter portion of the land as the above 4-meter portion of the land at the same time as the above 4-meter portion of the land, and thus, it is difficult for the Defendant to recognize that there was no dispute between the parties concerned as to the above 19-meter portion of the land and the above 9-meter portion of the land.

2. The form of occupation of a road by the State or a local government is divided into occupation as a road management authority and occupation as a de facto controller. As such, if a road zone is determined under the Road Act or a road is established by the implementation of an urban planning project under the Urban Planning Act, occupation as a road management authority may be recognized starting from that time. However, if the State or a local government, even if there was no act of constructing a road pursuant to the Road Act, has performed road construction works for reconstruction, maintenance, and repair of a road, such as expansion of a road, packing of a road, or installation of a sewerage system, for the sake of the general public traffic, it shall be deemed that the road is actually under the de facto control of the State or

Therefore, if a person other than the State or a local government, or a person who actually constructs, maintains, or repairs a road as a self-help project, or a person who actually constructs, maintains, or repairs an existing road, it is difficult to regard the person who actually controls the road as the State or a local government. However, even if the road is constructed in the form of a self-help project, if such circumstance is recognized as such, such road is actually under the actual control of the State or a local government, and is in charge of maintenance and repair of the road even after the construction work, and is common use for the traffic of the public, it can be deemed that the road is actually under the control of the State or the local government. Thus, the determination of the occupancy of the State or the local government should be made by examining the aforementioned various circumstances. The mere fact that the State or the local government bears part of the construction cost for the self-help project is not the State or the local government (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Meu20514, Feb. 13, 190;

However, according to the facts established by the court below in this case, when the defendant executes sewage pipes construction and cement packaging construction as part of resident self-help projects around October 1975 with respect to the road in this case, 70% of the construction cost was borne by the defendant, and in 1984, the defendant again performed the road repair works with cement packaging, and plays the role of the main road passing through many vehicles. Thus, it cannot be said that the road in this case is in fact occupied by the defendant as a de facto controlling entity.

Under the erroneous premise that the occupation of the State or a local government on the existing roads can only be recognized from the time when the road zone is determined under the Road Act or when the local planning project is implemented under the Urban Planning Act, regardless of the defendant's de facto control relationship, the court below determined that the possession of the defendant cannot be recognized despite the defendant's erroneous premise that the defendant's actual control relationship is not distinguished from the occupation of the road management agency and the occupation of the actual controlling entity, which affected the conclusion of the judgment (the purport of the judgment of the court below is different from the purport of the judgment of the case in this case where the decision of the court below was made on February 13, 1990 as to the related cases pointed out by the defendant's attorney in the reply, which affected the conclusion of the judgment (the purport of the judgment of the court below is that the local government bears part of the expenses or material for self-help project and that the local government is actually responsible for the management of the road as the de facto controlling entity, and it cannot be concluded that the local government actually occupies and manages the road as the road management authority.)

3. However, in the case where the plaintiff was the owner of 743 square meters of a group of the site as the plaintiff was the owner of the 743 square meters of the site, who was divided into several lots, and formed a road for sale in lots to many other persons, and the road of this case designated as the site for the road was prepared by the passage way to the public for the residents of this case, and the utility value of various sites has been secured due to the above passage, the plaintiff provided the road of this case for the use of several lots of housing sites sold by the plaintiff, and the use of the road of this case and the passage to the residents of the housing site, and it may be viewed that the plaintiff renounced exclusive and exclusive use rights to the road of this case and granted the right to use the road of this case free of charge to the owner of the housing site and the residents of this case (see each of the above Decisions 90Da14546, Feb. 8, 191; 91Da11889, Jul. 9, 191).

The lower court should also examine whether the instant land satisfies the aforementioned traffic route requirements and examine whether the Plaintiff has the right to claim the use and profit of the instant road.

4. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)