beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. In a case where the neglected land is actually being used as a road for the public use by the general public without implementing the urban planning project after making a public announcement of the land pointed out, etc. as to the urban planning that is one of the urban planning facilities, if the owner of the land provides the land as a road and grants the right to passage without compensation to the neighboring residents or the general public, or appears to waive exclusive and exclusive rights to use the land, the decision shall be made carefully by taking into account the circumstances leading up to the ownership of the land, the period of the sale by him/her in installments in line with the urban planning, the circumstances leading up to the sale by him/her of the land, the course and scale of the sale by installments in accordance with the urban planning, the location and nature of the land to be used as the road, the relation with other neighboring land, the surrounding environment, etc., as well as the degree of contribution to
(See Supreme Court Decisions 88Meu1697 Decided July 11, 1989; 2010Da19259 Decided June 24, 2010, etc.). In particular, if a part of land, which was to be incorporated into a road site, was sold or used as a housing site by dividing only the remaining part of the land except for such part as was inevitable as the owner of the land at the time of its incorporation into a road site actually restricted the use and profit-making of such part due to the designation of the road site, it is difficult to readily conclude that the owner of the land, on the ground that the said part is used as a general passage,
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da36268, Nov. 21, 1995; 2012Da30502, Mar. 28, 2013). 2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted reveals the following facts.
A. On February 2, 1967, the Plaintiff was the case between Suwon-si E, Suwon-si and 366 square meters or less.