Supreme Court Decision 79Da1422 delivered on July 8, 1980

Supreme Court Decision 80Da1002 Delivered on June 9, 1981

1. Based on its reasoning, the lower court determined that: (a) the road of 290 square meters is divided into 1,657 square meters, the original Plaintiff-owned ( Address 2 omitted), and that there was no dispute between the parties; (b) this building was a road that constitutes the boundary between fire fighting and air transmission in both documents in Gyeonggi-gun; and (c) this area was incorporated into Seoul as of January 1, 1963; (d) the Gangseo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City determined and publicly announced the above land as a road for the urban planning project on January 18, 1969, which was located as the boundary between the fire fighting Dong and the airport consent; and (e) the two sub-offices under the Defendant-owned as the passage of the residents and laid down the sewage pipe by converting the land category from the answer to the road; and (e) the Defendant, as of August 1, 1975, notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the Defendant occupied the above land into the road and excluded the Plaintiff from the construction of the road from the construction of the road.

2. According to the records, in the legal brief of April 11, 1979 stated at the date of first instance on May 2, 1979, the defendant, from around 1972, the plaintiff sold from around 1972 to 20 lots the above (name 2 omitted) No. 1,657 square meters to 1,657 to 20 lots, and the plaintiff provided 290 square meters of the land to purchase the land as a road to promote the convenience of the purchaser of the land, and used it as a road where the purchaser of the land constructs a building and reaches a contribution to the building. As part of the Saemaul project of the residents' Saemaul, it is evident that the defendant did not build a road on the land on the land on which the city of the defendant market was located, and this fact is clearly asserted that the court below's proof and the fact that the plaintiff did not reject the above opinion pursuant to the evidence No. 2, No. 6 and No. 7 evidence No. 2.

3. The original land owner's disposal of the land after dividing it into a housing site and providing the land remaining after selling it as a passage to the residents' contribution, the original land owner's possession and management of the land can not be said to be the defendant's market only with the fact that the residents using the land as a passage have borne a significant portion of the construction cost in the construction cost, sewerage and road packing in order to enhance efficiency according to the current status of the land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 79Da1422, Jul. 8, 1980; 78Da2086, Oct. 16, 1979). Therefore, the above judgment of the court below's rejection of the judgment affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, it is clearly reasonable to reverse the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, by the assent of all participating Justices, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)