A. Criteria to determine whether the owner of land actually used as a road has renounced his/her right to use or has given his/her consent to use the road

(b) The case holding that if part of the land was purchased with the knowledge of the fact that it was publicly announced as a site site and changed the form and quality of the site as a site, the part of the site site is immediately divided and supplied as a passage, and the remaining part is disposed of as a passage, it can be deemed that the right to use and benefit from the part of the site

A. In a case where a private land is actually used as a road traffic according to the changes in the surrounding environment after being incorporated into a land scheduled for a road, if a landowner renounces his right to use or profit from the land, or if it seems that he consented to use or profit from the road, the reasons or scale of the divided sale of the remaining land in line with the urban planning line, the location of the land to be used as the road, nature, relationship with other neighboring land, surrounding environment, etc., and the degree of contribution to the land concerned for the effective use or profit from the remaining land partitioned and sold should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following factors:

B. The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that if part of the land before partition was known to the public as a prospective road site with the knowledge of the fact that a part of the land before partition was publicly announced as a prospective road site, it was immediately disposed of as a housing site after changing the form and quality of the land as a site, and the ownership period was not less than four months, and the part of the planned road site is almost the only passage through which most of the sites disposed of in the division, and the part of the planned road site can be disposed of as a public road, and the part of the planned road site could only be provided as a passage for the purpose of disposing of the land before partition as a site, and the utility value of the divided site becomes secured due to the use of the part as a site by passage, the owner shall waive the exclusive right to use and benefit from the part of the planned road site and granted the purchaser and residents

Article 741 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Da1778 delivered on September 28, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2940) 93Da31412 delivered on May 13, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1666) 94Da16588 delivered on October 25, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 3086)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Suwon-si

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na14709 delivered on October 6, 1993

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal by the attorney are examined.

In a case where a certain piece of land is actually used as a common road due to changes in the surrounding land environment after being incorporated into a public road, if the landowner renounces his/her right to use or appears to have given consent to use the land, the circumstances leading to the partitioned sale of the land in line with the urban planning line, the location and scale of the land used as a road, the relationship with neighboring land, and the degree of contribution to the remaining land for the efficient use or profit-making of the land should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following facts: (i) the Plaintiffs were to purchase the land from the 6th anniversary of the partitioned land to the 6th anniversary of the land’s use of or profit-making from the partitioned land, and (ii) the remaining portion of the land, other than the land at issue, which was naturally partitioned into the 6th anniversary of the land at issue, was not the land at issue, and thus, the Plaintiffs were to be deemed to have been entitled to use or profit-making on the 6th anniversary of the land at issue, and (iii) the remaining portion of the land at issue was partitioned into 17th of Gyeonggi-do.

In comparison with the records, we affirm the above fact finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the mistake of facts or unjust enrichment due to a violation of the rules of evidence, such as a theory of lawsuit, or a mistake of facts or a mistake of unjust enrichment due to a violation of the rules of evidence. In addition, the precedents of the party members pointing out the theory of lawsuit

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

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)