부당이득금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 509,871 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from June 1, 2017 to August 22, 2018.
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
(a) Facts of recognition;
A. On October 9, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on inheritance by consultation and division, under Article 127285, Cheongju District Court (No. 127285, Oct. 9, 2012, with respect to the forest of this case (hereinafter “the forest of this case”).
B. The Defendant, among the forest land of this case, has installed a power transmission line, such as the indication of the attached drawing (hereinafter “the transmission line of this case”), and occupies and manages it.
The area of the portion not in line within 3 meters of the distance from the power transmission line of this case is 2,694 square meters.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant land”). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
B. 1) In the event that a landowner is subject to restriction on the use of a high-tension cable over the land by passing over the airspace above the land, barring any special circumstance, the landowner may seek a return of the amount equivalent to the rent for the airspace above the airspace over which the use of the said cable is restricted to the owner of the said cable. In such a case where the provisions on maintaining a certain distance between the airspace above the airspace through which the high-tension cable is passing and the airspace and the structure are stipulated in the relevant statutes, the land owner’s use of the airspace above the distance is restricted.
(2) The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit from October 9, 2012 to January 12, 2017, which the Plaintiff seeks to acquire the ownership of the instant forest by installing an electric transmission line to the air space without any justifiable title, and using and managing it. (See Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da14083, Apr. 13, 2006; 2007Da58544, Jan. 15, 2009). According to the above facts, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit and filed a claim against the Defendant for additional guidance on compensation for unauthorized Use, which applied the unit price for the “additional guidance on compensation for unauthorized Use,” from January 13, 2017 to the entire area of the said land, and then claimed KRW 56,551,70, which applied the unit price to the entire area of the said land.