The meaning that the occupation and use of a road as prescribed in Article 44 of the Road Act is for public use or public interest.

When the occupation and use of a road as prescribed in Article 44 of the Road Act is for public use or public interest purpose, the occupation and use of the road itself is for public use or public interest purpose, and even if the occupation and use of the road is a public interest institution or organization, it cannot be uniformly determined that the occupation and use is for public use or public interest purpose.

Article 44 of the Road Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 72Gu203 delivered on March 20, 1973

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. For its reasons, the judgment of the court below recognized that since there is an obstacle to the new nature of religious events, such as gathering of miscellaneous merchants on the road site in front of 12, Jung-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is adjacent to the church party, and impairing the view of the church party, it may interfere with the view of the religious events, such as destroying the glass of the church party, and thus, it may interfere with the maintenance of the church party and the convenience of traffic, it may be deemed that the occupation and use of the road site is planted on the south of the road, and the wood company, the representative of the plaintiff church, occupied the road site on the south of the road for the purpose of maintaining the church party and raising the street trees, and the land for the above occupation and use of the road site as of June 20, 1968 to December 31, 1968, the land for the above occupation and use of the road site for 163.15 meters from the size of the road site to December 1, 1968 to the land for the occupation permit of the plaintiff 16.1.6

2. In light of the records, the above measures of the court below are just, and it cannot be found that there was an error in the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing, and the certificate of No. 3 of the lawsuit No. 3 is about only the area of the road located south of the plaintiff church. Thus, the above recognition cannot be interfered with, and the testimony and the certificate of No. 4 of the non-party 2 of the witness witness witness No. 2 are legitimately rejected by the court below, and the issue of whether the plaintiff's letter of permission to occupy and use the road was received can not affect the establishment of the permission. The purport of the lawsuit No. 4 is that the defendant's permission to occupy and use the road was obtained by the defendant and that the head of the Gu was not the permission of the above non-party No. 3 and No. 4 of the lawsuit is confused with the permission to occupy and use the temporary occupation

3. When the occupation and use of a road under Article 44 of the Road Act aims at the purpose of public or public interest, it refers to when the occupation and use of the road itself aims at the purpose of public or public interest, and even if the occupation and use of the road is an institution or organization for public interest, it cannot be uniformly determined that the occupation and use of the road is for public or public interest purposes. Thus, the judgment of the court below that did not regard the occupation and use of the road as the occupation and use of the road under the circumstances such as the Won-si as the occupation and use of the road as the occupation and use of the public or

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed with the assent of all participating judges, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Young-soo (Presiding Justice)