1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "7,8,10" of the 4th judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: "7,8,10" of the 17th judgment "7,8,10" of the 4th judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: "The 5th judgment is divided from "U" to "B" of March 24, 1994, and "the 7th 14th th th 14th m", and the 420 main text of the Civil Procedure Act is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment at the court of first instance.

2. In interpreting that an owner of land subject to additional determination grants a right to passage without compensation to neighboring residents or the general public by providing the land as a road, or gives a right to exclusive and exclusive use of the land to waive such right, it shall be determined by comprehensively considering the following: (a) the circumstances leading up to the ownership of the land in question or the holding period; (b) the details and scale of the sale in installments of the remaining land; (c) the location and nature of the land used as the road; (d) the relationship with neighboring land; and (e) the degree of contribution to the effective use of the divided land in question and for profit-making; and (e) the original owner of the land waives the right to exclusive use and profit-making of the land by providing a part of the land as a road site without compensation and then the resident acquired the ownership of the land in question at least by auction, sale, payment, etc., or by acquiring the ownership of the land in question. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the owner of the land has not exercised the right to exclusive use and profit-making of the land.

Supreme Court Decision 2009Da8802 Decided June 11, 2009 and Supreme Court Decision 9 May 9, 2013.