The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court below rejected the defense of the defendant's defense that the plaintiffs, who are the owners of each land of this case, renounced the exclusive use right of each of the land of this case, on the ground that the defendant, without title, implemented the road packaging, etc. on the part other than the part on the ship connected each of the items of 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, and 1 (hereinafter "each of the lands of this case"), among the lands listed in the annexed Forms 1 through 4 of the judgment below (hereinafter "each of the lands of this case") of the land of this case as stated in the annexed Forms 1 through 4 of the judgment below (hereinafter "each of the lands of this case"), and occupied and used them as roads by providing them for public traffic. Thus, the court below determined that the defendant's defense that the plaintiffs, as owners of each of the lands of this case, renounced the exclusive use right of this case, could not be deemed to have renounced, and even if the plaintiffs renounced the exclusive use right of each of the lands of this case, in light of its reasoning.

2. However, the above determination by the court below is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

Even in cases where a landowner considers that a land-use situation in conformity with his/her own intent is not recognized because he/she is formed by providing his/her own land without compensation or allowing access to it through the general public, as long as the existing use status is maintained under the principle of good faith, such as gold, protection of trust, etc., the landowner should be free of charge so that he/she may not occupy and use the land.