beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. In a case where the neglected land is actually being used as a road for the public use by the general public without implementing the urban planning project after making a public announcement of the land pointed out, etc. as to the urban planning which is one of the urban planning facilities, if the owner of the land voluntarily provides such land as a road, and grants the right to passage without compensation to the neighboring residents or the general public, or appears to waive the exclusive and exclusive use right to such land, the decision shall be made with a careful consideration by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances leading up to the ownership of the land, the period of the sale of the land in installments in line with the urban planning, the developments and scale of the sale of the land, the location and nature of the land to be used as the road, the relationship with other neighboring land, the degree of contribution to the land for the effective use and profit-making of the remaining land partitioned and sold; and
(See Supreme Court Decisions 88Meu1697 Decided July 11, 1989; 2010Da19259 Decided June 24, 2010, etc.). In particular, if the owner of a parcel of land, who was to be incorporated into a part scheduled to be constructed as a road due to an announcement, such as an urban planning, actually restricted the use and profit-making of the said part due to such announcement, sells only the remaining parcel of land or uses it as a housing site, it is difficult to readily conclude that the said part is used as a passage through the general public, and thus, the owner renounced his/her right to use and profit-making of the part.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da36268, Nov. 21, 1995; 2012Da30502, Mar. 28, 2013). 2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted reveals the following.
The plaintiff N on January 1954