The meaning of "the de facto private road" under Article 6-2 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Compensation for Loss.

The de facto private road referred to in Article 6-2 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Compensation for Loss and Compensation for Loss of Land refers to the road that a landowner opened by himself in order to increase his own interest, and even if part of the land ownership is granted to many and unspecified persons for a certain period, the land in which the owner of the land can exercise his ownership and prohibit its passage does not correspond to the above private road.

Article 6-2 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Compensation for Loss

Supreme Court Decision 80Do1783 Decided September 28, 1982, Supreme Court Decision 83Meu1747 Decided December 13, 1983

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Kim Dong-hwan, Counsel for the Central Land Tribunal

Attorney Kim Dong-hwan, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu282 delivered on October 8, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant’s Intervenor and the remainder by the Defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and his assistant intervenor are examined.

Article 6-2 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Acquisition of Land for Public Use and Compensation for Loss refers to a road which a landowner opens for the purpose of enhancing his own interest, and even if a part of the land is offered for the passage of many and unspecified persons for a certain period, the land in which the owner of the land can exercise his ownership and prohibit the passage of the land does not actually constitute the above private road (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Do1783, Sept. 28, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 83Meu1747, Dec. 13, 1983).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held on April 15, 1970 that the non-party owned the land in this case and the land adjacent to the land in Seoul Seongbuk-gu ( Address 1 omitted) and borrowed money from the plaintiff as collateral, and that the non-party purchased the land in this case from the plaintiff on April 15, 197, and purchased the land in this case and purchased the land in this case to develop it as the housing site, and started the construction of the de facto road to enter the land in this case. However, the above forest price was designated as the military protection zone in 1971 and cannot be developed, and the private road was not borrowed from the plaintiff. Since the non-party had completed the registration of ownership transfer of the land in this case as to the land in this case, it cannot be seen that the non-party had opened the private road in this case as the passage to the land in this case and it cannot be seen that the non-party had the right to use the land in this case to legally establish the land in this case.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and it is difficult to see that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles pointed out by the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason to argue

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Dal-sik (Presiding Justice)