The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a case where a private land is naturally occurring or is classified into a proposed road site and actually used as a road for the traffic of the general public, in order to interpret that the owner of the land grants a neighboring resident or the general public the right to free access to the land by providing the land as a road, or waives his/her exclusive and exclusive right to use and profit from the land, the following should be comprehensively examined and determined: (a) the circumstance and period he/she owned the land; (b) the details and scale of the sale in installments of the remaining land; (c) the location and nature of the land used as the road; (d) the relationship with the neighboring land; and (e) the surrounding environment; and (e) the degree of contribution to the land for the effective use and profit of the remaining land

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da21517 Decided August 25, 2005). Further, since it is reasonable to deem that the original owner of the land provided part of the land as a road site without compensation, and waivers of the exclusive and exclusive rights to use and benefit therefrom, and accordingly, the person who specifically succeeded the ownership of the land through auction, sale, payment in substitutes, etc. after the residents passed the land without compensation and subsequently acquired the ownership of the land, it is reasonable to deem that he/she acquired the ownership of the land by auction, sale, or payment in substitutes, etc. or at least with knowledge of such circumstances that there is a burden as to the restriction on such use and benefit, he/she cannot exercise the exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from the portion of the land provided as a road. Therefore, even if a local government occupies and manages a part of the land as a

Supreme Court Decision 8 May 8, 1998