Supreme Court: "Even Landowners Abusing Rights by Demanding Demolition or Delivery of Public Roads"

Supreme Court, Seocho-dong, Seoul / Photo by Honam Moon munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The Supreme Court has ruled that even if a passageway used by multiple people is on one's land, the owner demanding the local government to remove or hand over the sidewalk constitutes an abuse of rights.

On the 28th, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Kim Sanghwan) announced that it overturned the lower court's ruling, which had ruled in favor of landowner Mr. A in a land delivery claim lawsuit against Gimcheon City, and remanded the case to the Daegu District Court.

In 2014, Mr. A purchased approximately 60,000㎡ of forest land in the Gimcheon area through a voluntary auction. However, the site included a passageway used by monks and devotees of a nearby temple, visitors, and residents. This road had been designated as a rural road by Gimcheon City 30 to 40 years ago, paved with cement, and managed since then.

Mr. A filed a lawsuit against Gimcheon City, demanding the removal or delivery of the road.

The first trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating, "Gimcheon City is occupying the land without legal grounds." It ordered Gimcheon City to remove the road and hand over the land at that location to Mr. A.

The second trial court also upheld this judgment. The court at the time stated, "The mere fact that the road was designated as a statutory road and managed by Gimcheon City does not immediately recognize possession rights," and dismissed the defendant's appeal.

However, the Supreme Court ordered a retrial and reconsideration of the case. The court stated, "The road was naturally formed long ago, and Gimcheon City designated it as a rural road under the Rural Road Maintenance Act, managing it for over 30 years, allowing the general public to use it as a public road. Knowing this, Mr. A's demand for removal and delivery of the road is likely an abuse of rights."

Furthermore, the court said, "Everyone has the freedom to use public roads unless there are special circumstances, and if a third party obstructs a person's passage, it constitutes an unlawful act under civil law." It added, "The lower courts erred in their understanding of the law regarding public roads, which affected their judgment," and thus overturned and remanded the case.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.