1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the first instance is as follows: (a) the 6th 17th 17th son of the judgment of the first instance is dismissed as all these “all these”; and (b) the defendant added the following 2th additional judgment to the assertion emphasized or added by this court; and (c) therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(In view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court, the first instance court's findings and determination are justifiable, even if the evidence No. 2 submitted by the Defendant to this court was added to the evidence No. 2).

A. 1) The summary of the argument is that the land category of the D land adjacent to the part of the instant “B” was changed to a road on December 31, 1971, and the part of the instant “B” also appears to have been used as a de facto road since around that time. However, since the former owner of the instant land did not assert the right or claim compensation for damages, the Plaintiff may not exercise the exclusive right to use and benefit from the part of the instant “B” as long as the Plaintiff purchased the land with knowledge that the part of the instant “B” is used as a road. Therefore, the Plaintiff may not exercise the exclusive right to use and benefit from the part of the instant “B”, in a case where a land owner directly provides the said land as a road and is actually used as a public road for the natural occurrence or as a planned road site and is actually used as a road for the general traffic of the general public, if it is interpreted that the owner grants the right to use and benefit from the said land without compensation to neighboring residents or the general public.