The meaning of de facto private roads under Article 6-2 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Compensation for Loss

The de facto private road referred to in Article 6-2 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Compensation for Loss and Compensation for Loss means the road that the landowner opened to promote his own interest, and even if part of the land is granted through the passage of many and unspecified persons for a certain period, it does not constitute the land in which the landowner may exercise its

Article 4 (3) of the Public Compensation for Loss, Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 6-2 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu760 Delivered on February 24, 1987

Plaintiff 1 and five others

The Central Land Expropriation Committee

Head of Busan Metropolitan City;

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu1261 delivered on January 17, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendant.

Article 6-2 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Compensation for Loss of Land, the actual private road referred to in Article 6-2 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Compensation for Loss of Land, refers to the road that the landowner opened for the benefit of his own land, and even if part of the land is granted through many unspecified persons for a certain period, the land in which the landowner may exercise its ownership and prohibit its passage shall not be applicable to this (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu760, Feb. 24, 1987). The court below acknowledged the fact that part of the land in this case was actually used for the passage of the road to the road residents by the timely evidence, but it determined that there is no evidence to recognize that the land owner was the road that he opened for the benefit of his own land. Thus, the court below'

Therefore, the court below is just to deny the application of Article 6-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Compensation for Loss of Land, and there is no error of law such as theory of lawsuit. The arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)