If the defendant constructed a road under the Urban Planning Act or the Road Act on a road that is made to be provided as a passage to the public road when the land owner sells a group of housing sites to many persons, whether the damage is inflicted on the said land owner.

Unless there exist special circumstances, a landowner may be deemed to have granted the purchaser of a plot of land and all other persons residing within the said plot of land the right to free access to the said plot of land adjacent to the said plot of land to the public road when the landowner sells a group of housing sites to many persons, and thus, barring any special circumstance, the landowner cannot be deemed to have incurred any loss to the landowner on the ground that the said road constructed a road under the Urban Planning Act or the Road Act.

Plaintiff’s completion of attorney-at-law

Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 72Na2994 delivered on January 24, 1974

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine part of the grounds of appeal by the defendant's agent.

According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the land at issue in this case was changed to the road land category on November 1, 194 (in the register, 1963.1.29) and the surrounding land was naturally used as a road as an urban house price (in the register, 1963.1.29) and the defendant Si incorporated the above land into the road management agency of the city as a construction announcement No. 560 of Sep. 19, 1963. However, the defendant representative asserted that the above land was established in the fact-finding court (the records No. 49.49., the above), but the above land should not be set up by the defendant market, and if the previous land owner claims that the land was constructed to provide the land as a road to the public road of the site, and the result of the verification executed by the court of first instance, the surrounding land is recognized as having exclusive ownership of the above land within the housing site, as long as it could not be seen as having been given to the purchaser of the above land without compensation.

Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any loss to the above land owner due to the construction of a road on which the snow shed was packed by the Defendant and which is subject to the restriction on private rights under the Urban Planning Act or the Road Act. Since there is a good reason to discuss the remaining grounds of appeal, the decision on the remaining grounds of appeal should be omitted, and this part of the judgment of the court below should be reversed and remanded to Seoul High Court, which is the court below. This decision is consistent with the opinions of the judges involved.

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)