If a road was constructed by another person but the relevant authorities pack the road, the possession of the road;

If the construction of the road is not based on the urban planning of the defendant city, but it was not designated as the City/Do according to the procedures prescribed by the Road Act, and if the non-party opened the road and used it together with the neighboring residents, the cost of the construction work is collected from the neighboring residents and then the neighboring residents are used as the road, the possession manager of the road after the packing work will be the defendant.

Articles 16, 22, 35, and 66 of the Road Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Da1492 delivered on August 31, 1971

Plaintiff

Fr. Sc. Sc.

Gwangju District Court Decision 70Ga146 decided Feb. 1, 198

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant delivered 19 square meters of the 698-2-2 road at the time of credit to the plaintiff, and paid 200 won per month from December 31, 1969 to the completion of delivery.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

As the plaintiff's principal claim, the defendant delivered 19-2 road 698-2, Sinsu-dong to the plaintiff, and paid 300 won per each month from December 31, 1969 to the completion of the above delivery.

As a preliminary claim, the Defendant will pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 5,700 each month from December 31, 1969 to the time the principal suit is closed.

The court costs are assessed against the defendant.

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

Purport of Incidental Appeal

The part against the plaintiff in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant delivered 19 square meters on the 698-2-2 road, Sinsu-dong, 698, to the plaintiff, and paid 300 won per each month from December 31, 1969 to the above India.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

First of all, according to the contents of No. 1, No. 2, 5, No. 2, and 2, No. 2, and No. 3, No. 4-1, and No. 4-2, No. 698, No. 698, No. 98, No. 408, which are no dispute over the establishment of the road from the State of December 30, 1969, which were purchased by the Plaintiff from the State of December 30, 1969, and were subdivided from No. 408, to No. 1, No. 3, No. 9, No. 9, No. 9, and No. 1, No. 9, No. 4, and No. 9, No. 9, No. 1, and No. 9, No.

Therefore, even though the founder of the road of this case is a female high school, which is not the defendant city, the road of this case has been provided not only to the above school, but also to the general public such as neighboring residents, etc., as well as the above, and as long as the defendant city collects the beneficiary's share by packaging it, it is reasonable to view that the road of this case is in possession of the defendant city, unless there are other special circumstances. Accordingly, it is clear that the defendant's partial testimony, etc. of non-party 3, 4, and non-party 5 of the court below's decision and the witness of this case is not believed, and it is obvious that the defendant market does not occupy the above road according to legitimate procedures such as the implementation

Therefore, according to the testimony of Non-Party 1 by the witness of the court below, Defendant City, as the illegal store of the site of this case owned by the Plaintiff, delivered it to the Plaintiff as the illegal store of the site of this case owned by the Plaintiff, and at the same time, it can be known that the user fee of this road is KRW 200 per monthly average, and accordingly, Defendant City, as requested by the Plaintiff, shall be obliged to pay the compensation for damages in equal amount of KRW 200 per monthly from December

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit shall be accepted within the scope that has been recognized no longer than without examining the remaining parts, and the remainder shall be dismissed as it is unfair. Thus, the original judgment with different conclusions shall be revoked, that is, the original judgment shall be revoked, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant who has lost all the first and second instances.

Judges Go-do (Presiding Judge)