Requirements for becoming a road to which the Road Act applies.

In order to become a road to which the Road Act applies, it requires the Minister of Construction and Transportation or a local administrative agency which manages the road in question, to take the procedure of public announcement, route recognition announcement, etc. as a road, as prescribed by the Road Act.

Articles 2 and 19 of the Road Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Hwang Sung-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 72Na1465 delivered on December 29, 1972

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the defendant's exercise of private right is restricted by Article 5 of the Road Act with respect to the land of this case which is the site that constitutes a road at the court below, the plaintiff's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the plaintiff's principal lawsuit, which is a form of exercising private right, is alleged to be unfair, and the land at issue is alleged to be a site that constitutes a road under the Road Act. In the court below, at least to be subject to the Road Act, it is necessary to take procedures such as the public notice of the road or the recognition public notice of the route as prescribed by the Road Act, and in this case, it is clearly determined that the land of this case cannot be deemed a road under the Road Act on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that there is no such procedure, and there is no ground for appeal to the defendant's defense, and there is no ground to believe that there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of the Road Act, such as the theory of lawsuit.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

The court below established the facts that the defendant removed the building of this case and used it as a road which is practically a public road for general traffic, such as the removal of the building of this case after the defendant removed the building of this case and laid underground and gravel on the ground, and therefore, it cannot be said that the above fact-finding of the court below was erroneous merely because the defendant did not have any other civil works or packing works with respect to the land of this case, as otherwise alleged in the arguments. In addition, the above fact-finding of the court below is justified in light of the records, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts in the original judgment, since the above fact-finding of the court below is justified.

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

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)