[1] In a case where private land is actually used as a road, the standard for interpreting the intent of the landowner to provide the road

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below that a landowner renounces his/her right to use and benefit from the land which was used as a road before the land was partitioned and granted his/her right to free access to the land to neighboring residents

[1] In a case where private land is naturally occurring or is classified into a proposed road site and actually used as a road for the public traffic, if the owner of the land grants the right to free traffic to neighboring residents or the general public by providing the land as a road, or if it is deemed that he gives up exclusive and exclusive rights to use and benefit from the land, it shall be determined carefully by comprehensively examining the circumstances such as the circumstance and scale of the ownership of the land, the location and nature of the land used as the road, the relationship with neighboring land, the surrounding environment, etc., as well as the degree of contribution to the land concerned for the effective use and benefit of the remaining land sold.

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground of the misapprehension of legal principles as to the waiver of the right to use and benefit from land, on the ground that the land owner: (a) owned the land in question prior to the de facto road construction by performing concrete packaging construction or performing asphalt packing construction; (b) owned the land for the passage of neighboring school students or residents; and (c) sold the remaining land except the land already roadized; and (d) sold it to others; (b) in the case where the land was adjacent to the existing road; (c) in the whole area, the land was occupied by the existing road; and (d) the land was occupied by 24% or more of the total area; and (e) the owner sold the remaining land except the land in fact due to the de facto road becoming a road and being used for the passage of neighboring residents or students in any other form; and (e) the land was sold in installments.

[1] Article 741 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 741 of the Civil Code

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da30907 delivered on May 13, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1664), Supreme Court Decision 95Da39946 delivered on November 24, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 150) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 95Da18451 delivered on November 28, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 162) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Da3917 delivered on March 26, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1370)

Plaintiff (Law Firm International Law Office, Attorneys Kim Dai-ju et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan City (Attorney Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 96Na11454 delivered on January 24, 1997

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

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s application for the change of land category on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff was divided into the instant land by the evidence cited above; (b) the Plaintiff’s land category of the instant land was partially 2,248 square meters prior to the original mother parcel number ( Address 2 omitted); (c) the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from Nonparty 1 on August 17, 1967 and entrusted the ownership of the instant land to Nonparty 2; and (d) the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground that the Plaintiff’s land category was terminated on August 16, 1977, on the ground that the instant land was divided by the Plaintiff’s land category of the instant land and the instant land was divided by KRW 18,000,00,000, which was located in Busan High School; and (b) the Plaintiff’s land category of the instant land was divided by KRW 1,70,000,000,000.

2. However, in a case where a private land is naturally occurring or is classified into a proposed road site and actually used as a road for public traffic, if the owner of the land grants the right to free traffic to neighboring residents or the general public by providing the land as a road, or if it appears that he waives exclusive and exclusive rights to use and benefit from the land, the decision of the court below should be made carefully by comprehensively examining the circumstances such as the circumstance or holding period he owns the land, the circumstance and scale of selling the land in installments in accordance with the already formed road or urban planning, the location and nature of the land to be used as the road, the relation with the neighboring land, the surrounding environment, etc., and the degree of contribution to the remaining land for the effective use and benefit of the divided land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da30907, May 13, 1994; 95Da396396, Nov. 24, 1995).

우선 원심이 인정한 사실관계에 의하더라도 원고는 이 사건 토지에 인근 주민들이 콘크리트 포장공사를 실시하거나 피고가 아스팔트 포장공사를 실시하는 등으로 이 사건 토지가 사실상의 도로화되기 훨씬 이전에 이 사건 분할 전 토지를 매수하여 소유하여 왔고, 또한 기록에 의하면, 원고는 위와 같이 이 사건 토지가 인근 학교 학생들이나 주민들의 통행로로 사용되어 오다가 피고에 의해 아스팔트 포장공사까지 실시되고 난 후에야 비로소 위 분할 전 토지를 분할하여 그 중 이미 도로화된 이 사건 토지를 제외한 나머지 토지들을 타에 매도한 것이며, 분할 매도된 나머지 토지들에 대하여 원고가 직접 택지로 개발하거나 그 지상에 건축물을 건축하지는 아니한 것으로 보이고, 이 사건 분할 전 토지는 이 사건 토지가 도로화되기 이전부터 (주소 3 생략)의 기존도로에 접하고 있었는데도 그와 별도로 형성된 이 사건 토지 상의 도로는 노폭이 8m에 이르고 'ㅏ'자 형태를 이루고 있어서 이 사건 분할 전 토지 전체 면적 중 24% 이상을 차지하고 있음을 알 수 있으므로, 이러한 여러 사정을 종합하여 보면, 원고는 이미 사실상의 도로화되어 인근 주민이나 학생들의 통행로로 사용되고 있는 이 사건 토지를 다른 형태로는 이용하기가 어려워 부득이 이를 제외한 나머지 토지만을 분할하여 매도하기에 이른 것이라고 볼 여지가 충분하다 할 것이고, 설사 원심이 인정한 바와 같이 이 사건 토지가 분할된 나머지 토지로부터 공로로 나가기 위한 거의 유일하거나 가장 간편한 통로라고 하더라도 그러한 사정만으로 원고가 이 사건 토지를 위 인정과 같은 위치와 성상의 통행로로 제공하는 방법에 의해 분할 전 토지를 분할 매도할 수밖에 없었다고 단정할 수는 없다 고 할 것이다.

Nevertheless, the court below concluded that the plaintiff provided the land of this case as a road and granted the right to free access to neighboring residents for the same reason as determined by the court below. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on waiver of land use and right to benefit, nor by failing to properly examine necessary matters, and it is obvious that such illegality affected the judgment. Thus, the ground for appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)