beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasons why the court should explain this case are the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the defendant's additional statement concerning the matters alleged in the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it shall be cited as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
【Additional Determination Matters】 The Defendant asserts that the previous owner of the instant land provided the instant land as a road site around 200 and granted the neighboring residents or the general public the right to free access to the said land, or renounced the exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from the said land, and the Plaintiff also acquired the ownership of the instant land with a well-known knowledge of such circumstances.
In a case where a certain private land is naturally generated from the previous one or is classified into a proposed road site and actually used as a public road for the traffic of the general public, if the owner of the land grants a neighboring resident or the general public the right to free access to the land by providing the land as a road or gives a waiver of exclusive and exclusive rights to use and benefit from the land, it shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following: (a) the circumstance and period he/she owns the land; (b) the details and scale of the divided sale of the remaining land; (c) the location and nature of the land used as the road; (d) the relationship with the neighboring land; and (e) the surrounding environment; and (e) the degree of contribution to the land for the effective use and benefit of the remaining land partitioned and sold.
(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff and the former owner of the instant land transferred the instant land to the Defendant before filing the instant lawsuit. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the admissibility of evidence, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.