The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

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, if the owner of the land provides the land as a road and grants the neighboring residents or the general public the right to free access to the land or gives up exclusive and exclusive rights to use the land, the construction should be made by comprehensively examining the circumstances such as the circumstance and period he owns the land, the situation and scale of the divided sale of the remaining land, the location and nature of the land to be used as the road, the relation with the neighboring land, the surrounding environment, etc., and the degree of contribution to the land concerned for the effective use and profit of the remaining land partitioned and sold;

(See Supreme Court Decisions 88Meu1697 delivered on July 11, 1989, and 2010Da47681 delivered on November 25, 2010, etc.). Meanwhile, it is reasonable to view that a person who succeeds to a specific title by auction, sale, payment in substitutes, etc. of the land after he/she provided a part of the land as a site for a road, and waivers the exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit therefrom, and accordingly, a person who succeeds to the ownership of the land by auction, sale, or payment in substitutes, etc. after he/she became a party to the land without compensation, may not exercise the exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from the part of the land provided as a road, with the knowledge of such circumstances.

Therefore, even if a local government occupies and manages part of the land as a road, it cannot be said that any damage occurs to a specific successor, and there is no benefit from the local government.