All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. It is reasonable to deem that a person who specifically succeeds to the ownership of the land, the exclusive use right of which is restricted by the original owner, by auction, sale, payment in substitutes, etc., has acquired the ownership of the land, even though he/she was aware of the burden of restricting such use and profit-making, barring any special circumstance. Therefore, such specific successor is prohibited from exercising the exclusive and exclusive use right of the land.

In such a case, whether there are special circumstances allowing a specific successor to exercise the exclusive use right of a specific successor shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following: (a) details and purpose of the acquisition of the land by the specific successor; (b) whether the land was indicated to a certain extent in the external appearance through the current use status, land category, etc.; (c) whether the price of the relevant land was reflected in the decline in property value due to the restriction on the exercise of the right to use and profit; and (d) whether the original owner’s gratuitous use of the land was related to the special personal relationship with the person using the relevant land or the permission, registration, etc. under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes for the use of the land; and (b)

(2) On January 24, 2019, the lower court, based on the reasons indicated in its reasoning, accepted the following: (a) E, the former owner of each of the instant lands, free of charge, provided each of the instant lands as a passage passage to and from the public service of the surrounding land; and (b) subsequently, admitted the circumstances that the Plaintiff bears the burden of restricting the use of and benefit from each of the instant lands; and (c) subsequently, there is at least a limit on the use of and benefit from each of the instant lands.