(a) The case holding that it is in possession of market price if the construction work on the road packing work, etc. for the general public and is in fact managed for the sake of public traffic by subsidizing most of the costs thereof as part of the Saemaul project at the land de facto

B. Criteria to be considered in determining whether the owner of land de facto formed as a road has renounced his/her right to use and benefit or has consented to use the road

(c) The case holding that it cannot be deemed that the owner of land de facto entered into a road has renounced his right to use and make profits therefrom, or provided it as a road by himself;

(a) The case holding that it is in possession of a road which is actually used for the traffic of the general public in the neighborhood and the general public by subsidizing the expenses required for the construction of cement routes, road packing works, sewerage works, cremation installation works, etc., as part of the market price Saemaul project, and if it is actually being used for the reconstruction of such roads and the management of land, etc., the market price is in possession of such road;

B. In order to deem that the owner of land actually becomes a road has renounced his right to use and profit from the road, or has given his consent to use the road, it shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the developments and holding period that he owned the relevant land, the developments and scale of the sale of the surrounding land in line with the urban planning line, the location and surrounding environment of the relevant land used as a passage, etc., and how much contributed to the relevant land in order to increase the utility of other land divided.

(c) The case holding that it cannot be deemed that a landowner renounced his right to use and benefit from the part of the proposed road site or provided it as a road on his own, in case where the land actually becomes a road due to the fact that the part designated as the proposed road site was actually impossible to use or benefit from, and the remaining part of the land was sold to others by dividing the remaining part of the land excluding such part into a site and constructing a house in line with the scheduled road site line, and living as a vacant lot for the purpose of using and passing

A. Article 192(a) of the Civil Code; B. Article 741 of the Civil Code

A. Decision 90Da5795 decided Mar. 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 1164) (Gong191, 164) 90Da14522 decided May 14, 1991 (Gong1991, 1619).B. Decision 90Da25529 decided Feb. 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 1063) 91Da11889 decided Jul. 9, 191 (Gong191, 2126) 91Da21206 decided Sep. 24, 191 (Gong191, 2607)

Plaintiff 1, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Busan High Court Decision 90Na7319 delivered on January 11, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, if it is difficult for the plaintiff to use the above portion of the land to be disposed of by the non-party 1 on August 9, 1978, which was divided from the non-party 5927 square meters prior to the non-party's ( Address 2 omitted) to the above 163-meter road construction work, or the non-party 2 acquired the above portion of the land on the non-party 1 on the non-party 2's own, and the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1'

In light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below and the decision that the defendant occupied and managed the land in question are reasonable (see Supreme Court Decisions 90Meu25529 delivered on February 22, 191, 191). In addition, in a case where a private land was incorporated into a road site and thus the land is actually used as a general traffic route due to changes in the surrounding environment, if the land owner renounces his right to use and profit from the land or is deemed to have given his consent to use and profit from the land, the circumstance and the holding period that the land was owned, the situation and scale of the sale to which the land was divided in line with the urban planning line, the location and surrounding environment of the land used as a passage, etc. shall be determined by comprehensively considering how the land contributed to the increase of utility of other land (see Supreme Court Decisions 90Da2529 delivered on February 22, 191, 2529, and 200Da2589 delivered on March 23, 1990).

In addition, all the Supreme Court Decisions pointing out by the theory of a lawsuit do not constitute an appropriate precedent in this case, with different cases. The arguments are groundless.

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 Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)