The case where there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to recognition of road routes under the Road Act.

It cannot be recognized as a road under this Act unless it has gone through procedures such as the kind of road, name, starting point, closing point, and announcement of important passage points pursuant to the Enforcement Rule of the same Decree and Enforcement Rule of the same Decree.

Article 1 of the Decree of the Shipbuilding Road, Article 11 of the Decree of the Shipbuilding Road, Article 12 of the Decree of the Shipbuilding Road, Article 13 of the Decree of the Shipbuilding Road, Article 14 of the Decree of the Shipbuilding Road, Article 15 of the Decree of the Shipbuilding Road, Article 16 of the Decree of the Shipbuilding Road, Article 17 of the Decree of the Shipbuilding Road, Article 18 of the Enforcement Decree of the Decree of the Shipbuilding Road, Article 16 of the Addenda of the Road Act.

Plaintiff

Head of Si/Gun

Daegu High Court Decision 64Gu49 delivered on April 27, 1965

The original judgment shall be reversed and the judgment

The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 by the plaintiff Kim Jae-hyung and the grounds of supplementary appeal by the defendant Kim Jae-hyung (the grounds of supplementary appeal are examined to the extent of supplement in case of the expiration of the period for submission of the grounds for supplementary appeal).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, two lots of land in this case are originally owned by the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2 in terms of evidence, the compensation shall be paid, and the route is recognized as being incorporated into a road leading to the history at the time of laying the central railroad on February 21, 1939, and the recognition, etc. of the route performed in accordance with the previous Acts and subordinate statutes before the enforcement of the Road Act in accordance with subparagraph 3 of the Addenda of the Road Act shall be deemed as prescribed by this Act, and the previous shipbuilding Order 2 provides for the recognition of the route, and there is no provision on the publication of recognition of route, so this road shall be deemed a

However, according to the records, it is reasonable to make a public notice of each of the above contents in the case where it is clear that the administrative disposition that the plaintiff is seeking cancellation (as seen above, No. 2) is a road under the Road Act, i.e., Article 5, Article 40, and Article 74 of the Road Act, in order to recognize it as a road under the condition that it is a road under the Road Act, the road should be recognized by each administrative agency for recognition of the routes according to the kinds and kinds of roads according to Articles 1 and 11 through 18 of the at the time of the shipbuilding Road Decree, and when such recognition is made, the administrative agency shall make a public notice of the names, starting points, terminals, and major progresss of the roads in accordance with Article 18 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Decree, and it is reasonable to make a public notice of the above contents in the above Article 16 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Decree, and it is not necessary to make a public notice of the first instance judgment as to the road under the condition that the road will be incorporated into a history.

Therefore, the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Supreme Court Judge Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)