1. In full view of the contents, character, legislative purport, etc. of Articles 76 and 77 of the former Road Act (wholly amended by Act No. 12248, Jan. 14, 2014; hereinafter “former Road Act”), in cases where road works become necessary due to other construction works or other acts, and where appurtenant construction works become necessary to execute the said road again due to such other construction works or other acts, all or part of the costs of appurtenant construction works under Articles 77(2) and 76 of the former Road Act shall be borne by the person liable to bear the costs of other construction works or other acts, i.e., the person liable to bear the costs of appurtenant works, within the scope of the burden, by applying the main sentence or proviso of Article 77(1) of the former Road Act.

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the first instance judgment, which partially accepted by the lower court, on June 24, 2010 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da56757, Jun. 24, 2010; 2014Da202318, Dec. 23, 2015). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the first instance judgment, the lower court: (a) even if drainage facilities installed by the Plaintiff as part of the instant drainage facilities function as part of the sewerage, the Plaintiff performed construction of the instant drainage facilities to promptly discharge rainwater flowing into the instant road when the Plaintiff was concentrated as a road management authority; (b) thus, the Plaintiff’s drainage facilities installed by the Plaintiff constitute part of the instant road, which constitutes the instant road as part of the instant road; and (c) accordingly, the instant gas pipeline construction falls under the instant road; and (d) the Defendant, whose occupation charges were reduced under the proviso to Article 77(1) of the former Road Act, should bear the entire costs of the instant gas pipes.