The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where a private land is naturally occurring or is classified into a proposed road site and actually used as a road for the public traffic of the general public, when a landowner grants a neighboring resident or the general public the right to exclusively use and benefit from such land by providing such land as a road, or when interpreting the intent that he/she renounces his/her exclusive right to use and benefit from such land, the determination shall be made prudent by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, including the details and period of holding the land owner’s ownership, the details and scale of providing the land for the public use, the interest or benefit of the owner in providing the land, the location or form of the relevant land, the relationship with other neighboring land, and the surrounding environment

(See Supreme Court Decisions 88Meu16997 Decided July 11, 1989 and Supreme Court en banc Decision 2016Da264556 Decided January 24, 2019, etc.). 2. A.

The judgment below

The reasons and records reveal the following facts.

(1) On August 11, 1978, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Plaintiff’s future on August 11, 1978 with respect to the E 120 square meters in Namyang-si, Namyang-si (hereinafter “the indication of real estate”) prior to the division, and the said land was divided into the E 608 square meters in size and L212 square meters in December 27, 1994.

(2) On February 24, 1995, the defendant entered into a contract with the plaintiff to purchase the above L, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the above land on March 2, 1995.

(3) After 195, the Defendant, while carrying out a construction project on Gridong Road in 1995, incorporated a part of the land in E 608 square meters (hereinafter “the instant part of the land”) into the road and buried on the road. From that time, the said L and the instant part of the land were used as the roadway for more than 20 years, along with the roads connected later, and managed by the Defendant.