A. The factors to be considered in interpreting the intent that the owner of the land actually used as a road has renounced his/her right to use and benefit or has consented to the use of the road;

(b) A case where a landowner cannot be deemed to have given his/her right to use and benefit on his/her own road;

A. In a case where a private land is naturally occurring or is classified as a prospective road site and actually used as a passage of the general public, when interpreting the intent that the landowner renounced his/her right to use or profit from the land or gave his/her consent to use the road, the determination must be made carefully by taking into account various circumstances, including the developments and period of the purchase of the land in question, the details and scale of the divided sale in line with the urban planning line, the location and nature of the land used as a passage, surrounding environment, etc.

B. The case affirming the judgment of the court below holding that the land owner cannot be deemed to waive his right to use and profit from the land and to provide it as a road by himself, if it was practically impossible to trade the land as designated and publicly announced as a site for a road by the determination of urban planning as a result of the restriction on its use and profit-making, and only the remaining land except this was sold as a site by dividing it into a site, and if part of the land remains as a factory site and was naturally used as a passage of the residents.

Article 741 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da22032 delivered on February 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 1020) 91Da35649 delivered on October 27, 1992 (Gong1992, 3242) 92Da11930 delivered on April 13, 1993 (Gong193Sang, 1372)

[Judgment of the court below]

[Judgment of the court below]

Daegu District Court Decision 93Na7608 delivered on February 16, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In a case where a certain private land is naturally occurring or is classified as a prospective road area and actually used as a road, in interpreting the intent that the landowner renounced the right to use or profit from the land or gave the consent to use the road, it shall be carefully determined by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: the period of the purchase of the land in question or the details and scale of the divided sale in line with the urban planning line; the location, nature, surrounding environment, etc. of the land being used as a road (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da22032, Feb. 14, 1992; 91Da35649, Oct. 27, 1992; 92Da1930, Apr. 13, 1993; etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, when the plaintiff purchased 3,848 square meters of the whole land including the land in this case and sold it to another person as a site in several lots, the court below recognized that the land in this case was naturally used as the actual passage of the residents in this case by selling only the remaining land as a site by dividing it into the site when the use of and profit from the land in this case was restricted due to the designation and public announcement of the planned road area according to the urban planning decision, and the sale of the remaining land except this was practically impossible. In light of the above judgment criteria and records, the court below held that the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have given up the right to use and profit from the land in this case and to have provided it as a road by itself. In light of the above judgment criteria and records, the above determination of the court below'

In addition, the decision of a party member who is satisfy, is inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case, unlike the instant case. There is no reason to provide guidance.

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

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)