The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Southern District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

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 grants a neighboring resident or the general public the right to free access to the land by providing the land as a road, or if interpreting that he gives a exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from the land, it shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the circumstance and period he owns the land, the situation and scale of the sale in installments of the remaining land, the location and nature of the land to be used as the road, the relationship with the neighboring land, the surrounding environment, etc., and the degree of contribution to the land for the effective use and benefit of the remaining land partitioned and sold;

(1) On July 11, 198, Supreme Court Decisions 88Meu1697, and 2013Da33454, Sept. 12, 2013, etc.). 2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court: (a) comprehensively based on the evidence adopted, filed an application for land division on May 20, 1968 with the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government CFT 316 square meters (hereinafter “the mother lot number of this case”); and (b) divided D or E into C, and divided D or E into land on July 11, 1968; and (c) divided the land in the shape that is contrary to the rectangular formula; and (c) divided the land in the shape of B (hereinafter “the instant land”); and (c) divided the land in the shape that is one of the instant land into two parallels; and (d) each of the instant land in the shape of GFT through HM 4; and (e) divided into two parallels or nine fourths.