Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Planned public road land excluded from de facto private road
Supreme Court, Jan. 17, 2019, 2018Du55753 (judgment)
Case name: 관리처분계획무효확인의소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where land is used as an existing road because a public-interest plan project or an urban plan decision has restricted it, but the project has never been carried out and the road is left long under the deferred installation of an urban planning facility, is that planned public road site a de facto private road within Article 26(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Acquisition and Compensation of Land for Public-Works Projects?
Holding
It is not. Such a road has been restricted by a plan decision but the public-interest project has not been carried out, and valuing its compensation on the footing of a de facto private road would bring the landowner a grossly unfair disadvantage by comparison with a case in which the road works begin right after the land is decided as a road. It follows that a planned public road site is excluded from the de facto private road defined in Article 26(2) of the Enforcement Rule, and the court below erred by premising its judgment on the contrary.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
예정공도부지는 공익사업법 시행규칙 제26조 제2항에서 정한 사실상의 사도에서 제외된다.
Unofficial English translation
Land planned for a public road is excluded from a de facto private road as provided in Article 26, paragraph (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Works Act.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 광주고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
제26조 제2항은 사실상의 사도는 ‘사도법에 의한 사도 외의 도로로서, 도로개설 당시의 토지소유자가 자기 토지의 편익을 위하여 스스로 설치한 도로와 토지소유자가 그 의사에 의하여 타인의 통행을 제한할 수 없는 도로’를 의미한다고 규정하면서
Unofficial English translation
Article 26, paragraph (2) provides that a de facto private road means ‘a road other than a private road under the Private Road Act, which the owner of the land at the time the road was opened installed for the convenience of his or her own land, and a road in which the owner of the land cannot, by his or her intention, restrict others from passing,’ while
Factors
- 공익계획사업이나 도시계획의 결정·고시 때문에 이에 저촉된 토지가 현황도로로 이용되고 있지만 공익사업이 실제로 시행되지 않은 상태에서 일반공중의 통행로로 제공되고 있는 상태로서 계획제한과 도시계획시설의 장기미집행상태로 방치되고 있는 도로
- 토지가 도시·군 관리계획에 의하여 도로로 결정된 후 곧바로 도로사업이 시행되는 경우의 보상액을 수용 전의 사용현황을 기준으로 산정하는 것과 비교하여 토지소유자에게 지나치게 불리한 결과를 가져온다는 점
- 국토의 계획 및 이용에 관한 법률에 의한 도시·군 관리계획에 의하여 도로로 결정된 후부터 도로로 사용되고 있는 것은 사실상의 사도에서 제외하고 있는바
Unofficial English translation
• A road which, because of a public-interest planned project or a decision and public notice of urban planning, consists of land subject to such encumbrance that is used as an existing road, but, the public works project not having actually been carried out, is provided as a passage for the general public, and is left unattended in a state of planning restriction and long-term non-execution of urban planning facilities
• The fact that, compared with the calculation of the amount of compensation on the basis of the status of use before the taking in cases where a road project is carried out immediately after the land has been decided as a road under an urban or gun management plan, this brings about results unduly disadvantageous to the landowner
• The fact that something which has been used as a road from the time it was decided as a road under an urban or gun management plan pursuant to the Act on the Planning and the Use of National Territory is excluded from a de facto private road, whereas
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2014. 9. 4. 선고 2014두6425 판결(공2014하, 2057)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2014Du6425 decided September 4, 2014 (Gong 2014 Ha, 2057)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2014. 9. 4. 선고 2014두6425 판결(공2014하, 2057)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
When a planned public road site is valued outside the de facto private road measure, as of what date and on what use of the land should its compensation be assessed?
A later decision that values a planned public road site, or one that treats land decided and announced as a road differently, would require this entry to be read again. Any amendment to Article 26(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Acquisition and Compensation of Land for Public-Works Projects also calls for a fresh reading.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Gwangju High Court, in its judgment of 20 August 2018 (2017Nu1853), treated the plaintiff's land as a de facto private road under Article 26(2)(ii) of the Enforcement Rule and on that premise held the management disposition plan lawful. The reasons show that the land was designated and announced as a site for a class 2 minor road by North Jeolla Provincial Notice No. 125 of 12 July 1977, was left as a rectangular strip in the middle of neighbouring land when that land was divided and sold between about 1983 and 1986, was paved and occupied by the City of Jeonju around 1985 without any expropriation procedure, and had served for some thirty years as the only road to a public road. The plan recorded a former asset appraisal value of KRW 94,674,000 computed on the road status, whereas a valuation of the land in its registered category as of around 4 December 2012 would give KRW 219,888,000.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the land, though decided as a site for a road and never afterwards decided or announced as a road, was actually used as a road and was a planned public road site, and so outside the de facto private road in Article 26(2). The court below had to go on to decide whether the management disposition plan was unlawful on that footing. Because it instead took the land to be a de facto private road under item (ii), it misread the limits of the de facto private road and failed to hold the necessary hearings, an error affecting the judgment, and the Court reversed and remanded with the unanimous agreement of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A road the landowner himself installed at the time the road was opened for the convenience of his own land, which the rule covers as a de facto private road.
- Land decided and announced as a road under the National Land Planning and Utilisation Act, which the rule itself takes out of the de facto private road and which is therefore not a planned public road site left undelivered.
- A road on which the public-interest project has in fact been carried out, since the description of a planned public road site assumes that the project has not actually been implemented.
Record verification notes
First establish from the record whether the land was ever decided and announced as a road, and whether the road works or the expropriation procedure have since been carried out, since the classification turned on the land being used as a road in fact. Then compare the compensation computed on the road status with the value in the registered category at the business approval announcement date, and note whether the alteration, here asphalt or concrete paving of the whole strip about 8 metres wide, leaves restoration easy, as the reasons relied on these circumstances.
From the official text
Points at issue
‘공익계획사업이나 도시계획의 결정·고시 때문에 이에 저촉된 토지가 현황도로로 이용되고 있지만 공익사업이 실제로 시행되지 않은 상태에서 일반공중의 통행로로 제공되고 있는 상태로서 계획제한과 도시계획시설의 장기미집행상태로 방치되고 있는 도로’ 곧 예정공도부지가 공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률 시행규칙 제26조 제2항에서 정한 사실상의 사도에 해당하는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether ‘a road which, because of a public-interest planned project or a decision and public notice of urban planning, consists of land subject to such encumbrance that is used as an existing road, but, the public works project not having actually been carried out, is provided as a passage for the general public, and is left unattended in a state of planning restriction and long-term non-execution of urban planning facilities’—that is, land planned for a public road—falls under a de facto private road as provided in Article 26, paragraph (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works (negative)
Summary of the holding
공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률 시행규칙(이하 ‘공익사업법 시행규칙’이라 한다) 제26조 제2항은 사실상의 사도는 ‘사도법에 의한 사도 외의 도로로서, 도로개설 당시의 토지소유자가 자기 토지의 편익을 위하여 스스로 설치한 도로와 토지소유자가 그 의사에 의하여 타인의 통행을 제한할 수 없는 도로’를 의미한다고 규정하면서 국토의 계획 및 이용에 관한 법률에 의한 도시·군 관리계획에 의하여 도로로 결정된 후부터 도로로 사용되고 있는 것은 사실상의 사도에서 제외하고 있는바, ‘공익계획사업이나 도시계획의 결정·고시 때문에 이에 저촉된 토지가 현황도로로 이용되고 있지만 공익사업이 실제로 시행되지 않은 상태에서 일반공중의 통행로로 제공되고 있는 상태로서 계획제한과 도시계획시설의 장기미집행상태로 방치되고 있는 도로’, 즉 예정공도부지의 경우 보상액을 사실상의 사도를 기준으로 평가한다면 토지가 도시·군 관리계획에 의하여 도로로 결정된 후 곧바로 도로사업이 시행되는 경우의 보상액을 수용 전의 사용현황을 기준으로 산정하는 것과 비교하여 토지소유자에게 지나치게 불리한 결과를 가져온다는 점 등을 고려하면, 예정공도부지는 공익사업법 시행규칙 제26조 제2항에서 정한 사실상의 사도에서 제외된다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 광주고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
Provisions referred to
공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률 시행규칙 제26조 제2항 제1호, 제2호
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger