[토지인도][집19(1)민,361]
With respect to the laying of electric wires constructed through the procedures under Articles 5, 6, 11 and 12 of the Electric Utility Act, even if the owner of the land concerned is the owner of the electric wires, he shall comply with the terms of the permission of the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, and may not request the removal of the support materials against them.
With respect to the support of electric wires built through the procedures prescribed by the former Electric Utility Act (Act No. 953, Dec. 31, 61), even if the owner of the land is the owner of the land, he/she shall comply with the terms of permission of the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, and may not request the removal of the support materials
Article 5 of the former Electric Utility Act, Article 6 of the former Electric Utility Act, Article 11 of the former Electric Utility Act, Article 12 of the former Electric Utility Act
Plaintiff
Korea Electric Power Corporation
Seoul High Court Decision 69Na1316 delivered on December 22, 1970
The part of the original judgment on the removal of high voltage lines and the delivery of land shall be reversed, and this part shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.
The remaining appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal concerning this part shall be borne by the defendant.
The defendant's attorney's second ground of appeal is determined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiffs were allowed to do so on April 23, 196, by citing the judgment of the court of first instance. Since the non-party, before acquiring the ownership of each of the land at issue on March 20, 1959, he did not have any legal grounds for rejecting the claim for removal of the steel tower under the Electric Utility Act. However, even if the above facts were not established prior to January 1, 1962, Article 5 and Article 34 and 9 of this Decree of the Electric Utility Act were not established with the permission of the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, and if the non-party, after obtaining the permission of the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy on each of the land at issue, he did not reach an agreement with the owner of the land at issue on the land at issue, and if it is necessary to do so, he could not obtain the permission of the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy and the owner of the land at issue and if so, he could not use the land at issue.
Therefore, without being required to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part concerning the removal of the steel tower and the transfer of land in the original judgment shall be reversed. The remaining grounds of appeal by the defendant are without merit, and the costs of appeal as to this part shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Kim Kim-gmb (Presiding Justice)