1. Upon a claim for change in exchange at the trial, the Defendant:

(a) Appendix 1.

1. Even if the Defendant’s determination of the facts of recognition and the claim against the Defendant were examined in all of the newly submitted materials in the trial, this Court’s explanation concerning this case is identical to the part of the first instance judgment (Article 1(2) of the first instance judgment) except for the part which the Defendant determines as to the matters alleged in the trial as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. Even if the defendant occupies the land in question of the purport of the defendant's assertion, it is impossible to exercise private rights on the site constituting the road pursuant to Article 4 of the Road Act, and thus, the part of removal and request for delivery among the plaintiff's claims is unreasonable.

B. The roads subject to the application of Article 4 of the Road Act refer to at least the roads recognized under the Road Act, which have undergone the determination of road zones or other procedures corresponding thereto under the Urban Planning Act, and there is no room for applying Article 4 of the Road Act to the roads not subject to such procedures.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da22725, Dec. 8, 1992). There is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant road is a road that has gone through lawful procedures, such as the recognition of routes and determination of road zones under the Road Act, according to the aforementioned legal doctrine.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion based on the premise that the land in the dispute in this case is a road that goes through legitimate procedures is without merit.

3. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim that was changed in exchange in the trial is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.