1.The judgment of the first instance court, including a claim expanded and reduced in this Court, shall be modified as follows:

1. The contents to be explained by the court in this part of the basic facts and the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion are as follows: “The court acquired “the rights derived from the instant land and the ground buildings” in Section 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance; “This court” in Section 9 of the fourth part is as “the court of first instance”; “No. 1, 201” in Section 14 of the fourth part is as “ February 1, 2012”; and “No. 8” in Section 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is as stated in the first and second part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding “No. 28” to “No. 1, 2012.”

2. Determination of removal of the pipes of this case and requests for delivery of road sections (main claims)

A. 1) The Plaintiff is the owner of the instant land, and the Defendant is the installer and manager of the instant superior road, and as such, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant superior road to the Plaintiff. Furthermore, if the Defendant is deemed to be the possessor of the instant road, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant road to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant is deemed to be the owner of the said road. As such, the form occupied by the State or a local government can be recognized as the owner of the road as a road management authority, even if the construction of a road was performed by the State or a local government under the Road Act, even if there was no act of construction of a road under the Road Act, it can be deemed that the road was actually under the de facto control of the State or a local government, and thus, it can be recognized as the owner of the instant superior road.

(Supreme Court Decision 91Da35649 delivered on October 27, 1992), and local governments are roads.