(a) Criteria for interpreting intent with respect to the provision of private land;

B. Whether the owner of land can be deemed to have renounced his/her right to use and provided it as a road solely on the ground that the land was designated as a site for a road under urban planning and its land category was changed to a road and the land category was left alone and used as a road by the general public, and the local government performed packing work (negative)

A. In a case where a private land is incorporated into a planned road site and is actually used as a road, if the landowner renounces his right to use or profit from the road, or if it is deemed that he consented to the use of the road, it shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account how much the land contributes to the increase of utility of other land divided by taking into account the developments and holding period of the land in question, the case where the remaining land was divided and sold in line with the urban planning line, its size, the location and surrounding environment, etc. with other land used as a road.

B. Since a local government designated the instant land as a site for a road according to an urban planning, the owner divided the instant land into four parcels and disposed of three parcels into another parcel, and the instant land has been used as a road by leaving the land category as a road alone by leaving it unattended into a road, and the owner cannot be deemed to have renounced his right to use and provided it as a road on the sole basis that the local government performed the road packing work. In addition, the local government should be deemed to have occupied and managed the instant land as a road.

A. Article 741 of the Civil Act: Article 192 of the Civil Act; Article 741 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Attorney Kang Jae-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Gwangju Metropolitan City

Gwangju High Court Decision 88Na6404 delivered on August 17, 1989

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The court below determined that the land in this case was part of 309-1, 922 square meters, the original land owned by the plaintiff. The part of the land in this case was determined as a road site in urban planning since early 1980, and the plaintiff was divided into the above 922 square meters in 309-1, 211, 300 square meters in 309-21, 309-22, 309-22, 309-22, and 116 square meters in 309-2, and the land in this case. The court below rejected the defendant's claim on the land in this case since the land in this case was constructed as a road site in order to increase the utility of the remaining 3 lots of land, and the land in this case was changed to the road site in fact, and the defendant did not gain any profits on the road in this case since the land in this case was changed to the road site and then the land in this case was transferred to the road.

If a land owner renounces his right to use or profit from the land or appears to have given consent to use as a road in a case where a certain private land is classified as a planned road site and is actually used as a road, it shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the situation or holding period of the land owner, the details and scale of the divided sale in line with the urban planning line, the location and surrounding environment of the land used as a passage, etc., and how much contributed to the increase of utility of other divided land (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu1697, Jul. 11, 1989).

Even according to the records of this case, there is no evidence to view that the plaintiff renounced the right to use and make profits from the land of this case and provided it as a passage for neighboring residents by setting it as a road site. As recognized by the court below, since the defendant market was designated as a road site in accordance with the urban planning, the plaintiff disposed of three lots by dividing the land of this case into four lots, and left the land of this case by leaving it as a road by leaving the land category of the land of this case without changing it into a road. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff renounced the right to use and make profits from the land of this case and provided it as a road by itself.

In addition, unless the plaintiff renounced his right to use and make the land of this case to be used as a road site, the defendant should be deemed to possess and manage the land of this case as a road site if the defendant market price determines the land of this case as a road site site and provides it for the general traffic by performing road packaging works as recognized by the court below.

Ultimately, the court below violated the rules of evidence or erred by misapprehending the legal principles on unjust enrichment, and it shall be deemed to fall under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. The grounds for discussing are.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)