1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged facts based on its adopted evidence, and determined that the road of this case was legitimate under Article 72 of the "Road Act" on December 26, 1936, considering the following facts: (1) at least the road of this case was indicated as a road in the cadastral map since 1938, which was the Japanese colonial rule system; (2) although the time when the ownership preservation registration was made in the name of Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul, which was the road before the division into the road of this case, was made on November 29, 1976; (3) the above land appears to have been owned by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City before that time; and (3) the road of this case was recognized as the route of the ship of this case, including the roads adjacent to the road of this case under the "Seoul Special Metropolitan City" under Article 722 of the "Seoul Special Metropolitan City Do Do Do 1936, Dec. 26, 1936.

2. However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

A road is in the form of a road and is subject to the application of the Road Act only when it is determined and publicly announced as a road route or a road zone under the Road Act, or when it is determined and publicly announced as a road zone, or when it is subject to the procedures prescribed by the Urban Planning Act or the Urban Redevelopment Act. According to Article 3, etc. of the Addenda to the Road Act enacted by Act No. 871 of Dec. 27, 1961, the route of the road is recognized by the Joseon Road Ordinance or the roads installed by the execution of the Joseon City Planning Ordinance are also included in the roads (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu2176, Sept. 30, 194; 2010Du28106, May 26, 2011).

According to the records, although the road of this case has been used as a road for the passage of the general public since before 1938, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the road of this case was used as a road for the passage of the general public. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the road of this case was used as a road for the purpose of the passage of the general public, or that the road of this case was constructed by the Decree of the Joseon City, or that the designation or approval of the route of this case was determined and publicly announced, or that the road zone was determined and publicly announced under the Road Act (it can be recognized that the road of this case was recognized as a road of this case, including the roads adjacent to the road of this case, under Article 722 of the General Shipbuilding Notice of December 26, 1936. However, in light of the above legal principles, there is no evidence to recognize the fact that the road of this case was recognized as a road of this case as a road for the passage of the general public.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the imposition of indemnity of this case under Article 94 of the Road Act is legitimate on the ground that the road of this case is deemed to fall under the road subject to the application of the Road Act, because the route of this case is recognized under the order of shipbuilding and its execution is installed under the order of shipbuilding and its execution. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the road subject to the Road Act, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Therefore, without examining the argument in the other grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

[Attachment] List of Selections: Omitted

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)