(a) The case holding that, where a public official in charge has obtained permission to establish and operate a rest area in a park from the Si and caused a misunderstanding of motive in accordance with a clerical error caused by a mistake of motive, it is deemed that, in the event that all land and buildings for rest areas, which are 16 times or more of the site for rest areas, in which no legal obligation for donation exists, are donated at the time, the remainder of land, except for the site for rest areas and the part concerning the facilities

(b) Whether rest area or rest area facilities among park facilities are public facilities under Article 83 (2) of the Urban Planning Act (negative);

(a) The case holding that, where a public official in charge has obtained permission to establish and operate a rest area in a park from the Si and caused a misunderstanding of motive in accordance with a clerical error caused by a mistake of motive, it is deemed that, in the event that all land and buildings for rest areas, which are 16 times or more of the site for rest areas, in which no legal obligation for donation exists, are donated at the time, the remainder of land, except for the site for rest areas and the part concerning the facilities

(b) Public facilities newly installed by an executor of an urban planning project who is not an administrative agency to implement an urban planning project and to be gratuitously reverted to the State or a local government to manage such facilities under Article 83(2) of the Urban Planning Act mean roads established by an urban planning project, underground passages installed on roads and underground spaces which are public objects, and public facilities incidental thereto, such as commercial buildings, sewerages, rivers, and embankments, and rest area sites or rest area facilities among park facilities, shall not be included in public facilities prescribed by the said Act.

(a) Article 6(1) of the Urban Park Act, Article 24 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 109 of the Civil Act, Article 83(2) of the Urban Planning Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 78Meu719 delivered on July 11, 1978 (Gong1987, 10978) (Gong10978). Supreme Court Decision 84Nu131 delivered on December 11, 1984 (Gong1985, 173)

[Defendant-Appellee] Attorneys Seoh Sung-hee et al.

Attorney Han-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant in Daegu Metropolitan City

Daegu High Court Decision 89Na4889 delivered on February 6, 1990

1. The rest area among real estate: 1,200 square meters;

2. As to this part of this case, the part of the defendant's complaint concerning real property is reversed.

The Daegu High Court shall be remanded to it.

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s construction of the instant 6th floor area was 1,200 square meters away from the instant 6th floor area of the instant 6th floor area, and that the instant 6th floor area was 1,20 square meters away from the instant 6th floor area of the instant 6th floor area, and that the instant 6th floor area was 1,200 square meters away from the instant 1st 6th 6th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 6th 7th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 1984.

In light of the records, the court below's determination that the above part of the above land and the above above above above above above above above ground-based land constitutes an error as to the motive under the contract of this case. However, if the plaintiff's above ground-based land-based land-based land-based land-based land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related land-related

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

The public facilities newly installed by an executor of an urban planning project, who is not a pedestrian well, to be reverted to the State or a local government which is to manage such facilities pursuant to Article 83(2) of the Urban Planning Act, mean roads established by an urban planning project, underground passages installed on roads or underground, public water, and facilities incidental thereto (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu131, Dec. 11, 1984; 84Nu131, Dec. 11, 1984; 84Nu131, Dec. 11, 1984; and the rest area or rest area facilities among park facilities shall not be included in public facilities prescribed by the above Article 83(2) of the Urban Park Act, and there is

3. Therefore, among the judgment below, this part of the case is remanded to the court below due to the destruction of the defendant's failure portion relating to the real estate No. 1,200 square meters of the attached list among the real estate and No. 2 of the attached list No. 1, and the land No. 1,200 square meters, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. The remaining appeal shall

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)