A. The Plaintiff, Selected B, C, and D share 15,070 square meters of forest E (hereinafter “instant land”) in Busan Dongdong-gu, Busan (hereinafter “the Plaintiff, Selected B, C, and D”), and the specific equity ratio is Plaintiff 18,683/151,740 equity, Selection B, C, and D, respectively. The specific equity ratio is Plaintiff 11118,683/151,740 equity, Selection B, C, and D.

B. The Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy determined the project implementer’s project period from January 2, 2014 to December 2, 2015, and approved the implementation plan for electric source development projects for the source of electric power transmission lines (hereinafter “instant project”) and publicly notified the project operator’s implementation plan on February 14, 2014 as G public notification of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy.

Accordingly, among the instant land, 224 square meters of a steel tower site (hereinafter “the instant steel tower site”) and 1,020 square meters of the airspace above 11-34 meters and above 1,020 square meters and above the electric transmission line were incorporated into land to be used for the instant project.

C. The Defendant filed an application with the Central Land Expropriation Committee for the ruling on the use of the instant steel tower site, etc. on August 20, 2015, and the Central Land Expropriation Committee rendered a ruling on the use of compensation for the instant steel tower site, which was KRW 10,628,770 (Plaintiffs 8,313,280, 280, 2, C, and D, KRW 771,830), and compensation for the instant shipbuilding was 13,066,180 (Plaintiffs 10,219,690, 2, C, and D, KRW 948,830, and the date of commencement of use of the instant steel tower site until the electrical structure continues to exist from the date of commencement of use.

On October 12, 2015, the Defendant deposited 22,652,450 won (=23,694,950 won-1,042,50 won) withheld from 10,628,770 won to 13,06,180 won (=23,694,950 won-1,042,50 won).

Plaintiff

Of the instant land, up to 3,300 square meters around the transmission line, etc. filed an objection against the said usage ruling by asserting that the compensation would be increased at an appropriate price.