The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Western District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. In a case where the head of a Si/Gun, etc. fails to implement an urban planning project by publicly announcing an urban planning plan to build a road, which is one of the urban planning facilities, and actually uses the neglected land as a road for the public use of the general public, if the owner of the land voluntarily provides the land as a road and grants a neighboring resident or the general public the right to exclusively use and benefit from the land, or if it is anticipated that he/she given the exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from the land, he/she shall make a careful determination by comprehensively examining the circumstance and scale of the land ownership, the period of holding the land, and other various circumstances such as the reason why he/she sold the land in accordance with the urban planning plan, the location and nature of the land to be used as the road, the relation with the neighboring land, the surrounding environment, etc., and the degree of contribution and contribution to the remaining land for the effective use

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da39946 delivered on November 24, 1995, etc.). B.

The judgment below

이유에 의하면, 원고는 1973. 10. 12. 서울 은평구 C 대 615㎡(이하 ‘이 사건 분할 전 토지’라고 한다)에 관하여 소유권이전등기를 마쳤고, 1982. 9. 28. 원고의 신청에 의하여 이 사건 분할 전 토지가 ㉠ C 대 44㎡, ㉡ B 대 141㎡, ㉢ D 대 187㎡, ㉣ E 대 243㎡로 분할된 후 같은 날 위 B 대 141㎡의 지목이 ‘대지’에서 ‘도로’로 변경되어 B 도로 141㎡(이하 ‘이 사건 토지’라고 한다)가 된 사실, 이 사건 토지 부분은 위와 같이 분할이 되기 이전부터 1969. 1. 18.자 서울시 고시 F 결정과 1990. 3. 20.자 서울시 고시 G 및 1990. 4. 11. 서울시 은평구 고시 H 변경결정으로 폭 8m 미만의 소로 3류로서 서울 은평구 I의...