beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 13,498,188 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from October 26, 2016 to December 15, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 13, 1984, the Plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the size of 124 square meters of the Hanyang-gu B road (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. At the time of September 1, 1939, the copy of the register of the land of this case stated that the land category of this case was indicated as a road, and the land of this case was actually used as a road since that time.
C. At present, the instant land is located on the right side of the underground roadway, and is being used in connection with the intersection road by a road of approximately 10 meters wide in coloring the lane, which is surrounded by a asphalt.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), the result of the appraisal commission to C appraiser's office of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. 1) In the event that the determination of the road route approval or the road zone is made under the Road Act with respect to the de facto road, or the implementation of an urban planning project under the Urban Planning Act is established, the possession of the road management authority may be recognized starting from that time. In a case where the State or a local government, even if the construction of a road is not performed under the Road Act, performs the reconstruction or maintenance of the existing road, such as expansion of the road, packing of the road, or installation of the sewerage system, and for public traffic, it shall be deemed that the road is under the de facto control of the State or a local government, and it shall be deemed that the road is actually under the control of the State or the local government, and possession as the dominant entity is recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da58216, Jun. 29, 195). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, according to the foregoing facts, the Defendant is deemed to have been actually used as a road for public traffic.