[Hello, Law Firm Cheongchul Attorney Kim Kwang-sik.

Recently, the Supreme Court issued a ruling reaffirming the contents of a previous unanimous decision regarding whether the exercise of ownership rights over private land used as public roads after a donation promise made during the process of promoting urban planning projects is restricted. This judgment particularly presents the criteria for determining whether the exclusive use and profit rights of a landowner are restricted when a private property is used as a road open to public traffic. Today, we will take a closer look at the relevant case.

[Question]

What are the criteria for determining whether the exclusive use and profit rights of a landowner are restricted when their private land is used as a road open to public traffic?

[Answer]

1. Case Overview – Conflict Between Public Interest and Private Property Rights

This case arose because a specific tract of land became the subject of a donation promise as part of an urban planning project, but issues occurred when the project fell through. The previous owner promised to make a donation to obtain approval for the implementation plan from the relevant authorities, and the authorities approved this promise as a condition for granting the implementation plan. However, the previous owner went bankrupt without completing the project, and the land was transferred to a new owner and placed in a trust. The new right holder of the trust claimed the return of unjust enrichment against the local government regarding this land being used as a road. The lower court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, viewing that the previous owner had waived their exclusive and exclusive use and profit rights over the land. However, the Supreme Court overturned this judgment and remanded the case, stating that it should carefully evaluate the restrictions on exclusive and exclusive use and profit rights.

2. Supreme Court's Judgment (Supreme Court Decision 2025. 1. 23. 2024Da277885) – Criteria for Judging the Restriction of Exclusive and Exclusive Use and Profit Rights

In this case, the Supreme Court detailed the circumstances under which exclusive and exclusive use and profit rights can be restricted and the criteria for such judgments. First, it acknowledged that if a landowner offers their land for public use or tolerates such use, the nearby residents or the general public may pass through that land for free, indicating that the exercise of the owner's rights may be limited. However, for such restrictions to be recognized, a variety of circumstances must be comprehensively considered. The Supreme Court believed that the background of how the owner came to possess the land and the duration of their ownership, the reasons for providing or tolerating public use of the land, the owner's intention at the time of providing the land, and the benefits and advantages gained by the owner due to the provision of the land should be closely examined. Notably, in this case, it was important to address that the donation promise was made as a condition for the approval of the urban planning project, and the fact that the project ultimately failed and the benefits that the owner intended to gain were not realized was significant. The Supreme Court concluded that if the donation promise was made necessarily for project approval, it would be difficult to definitively conclude a waiver of ownership rights based solely on that promise.

3. Legal Significance of the Ruling – Balancing Protection of Private Property Rights and Public Interest

This ruling is an important case that emphasizes the significance of protecting private property rights while illustrating how to harmoniously resolve situations where the use of land for public interest is unavoidable. The Supreme Court found that it would be unjust to declare the waiver of ownership rights based solely on a donation promise in the situation where the urban planning project had fallen through. Additionally, it highlighted that the local government had not provided just compensation regarding the land being used as a public road, and it importantly assessed the balance between the owner's intention to exercise their rights and public benefit. This ruling reaffirms the legal principle that even when private land is used for public benefit, the rights of the owner must be sufficiently protected. This case transcends a mere legal judgment of a single event and is expected to serve as a critical benchmark in finding the balance between public benefit and private property rights in similar situations.

4. Practical Implications – Responses from Landowners and Local Governments

This ruling provides practical lessons to both landowners and local governments that are directly or indirectly involved in urban planning projects. First, landowners should meticulously review the legal bases and explicit conditions related to donations and other contingencies, even when cooperating on public projects. It is particularly important to clearly understand in advance how actions such as donations will impact the rights of landowners, and if necessary, seek legal advice. Local governments must follow proper compensation procedures to ensure the protection of the owner's rights when using land for public purposes and base their administrative actions on clear legal grounds. Furthermore, they should carefully assess whether conditions like donations or other conditional approvals excessively infringe upon the owner's rights. This case shows that, especially when local governments prioritize only public interest over the rights of the owner, legal disputes may arise.

Conclusion – Legal Standards for Harmonizing Public and Private Interests

This ruling presents crucial legal standards for how to harmonize public benefit and private property rights in cases involving the use of private land related to urban planning projects. This case can serve as a precedent in all situations that deal with conflicts between public projects and private property rights, not limited to urban planning projects. In other words, even when using private land for public benefit, the rights of the owner must be sufficiently guaranteed, and it reaffirms the necessity for reasonable and cautious judgments that take various circumstances into account.

Attorney Kim Kwang-sik, based on expertise and experience gained at Kim & Jang Law Firm, has successfully resolved many real estate-related cases and deals with complex legal disputes such as ownership disputes, registration issues, and possession disputes, providing clients with the most suitable tailored legal solutions.

Quick and accurate judgment is crucial in real estate-related legal issues. If you work with Cheongchul, we will focus on accurately identifying the essence of the case and achieving optimal results. If you trust us, we will be a reliable supporter for you.