A. On December 18, 2015, the separate sheet “user fee” as stated in the separate sheet No. 1 to the Plaintiffs and the separate sheet No. 1 to the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs owned or owned the relevant land from July 23, 2005 or from the relevant date indicated in the “Optional Date” column of Attached Table 1.

Since July 23, 2005, the Defendant has installed and owned the special high voltage power transmission lines of 345KV or 154 KV over the corresponding land and the corresponding land indicated in the column for “number” in the attached Table 1 list owned by the Plaintiffs, and the Defendant has installed and owned a steel tower on the attached Table 1 List 3 (Attachment 2 List 2).

[Reasons for Recognition] In light of the above facts, Gap's non-contentious facts, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14 through 18, 20, 21, 25 through 31, 33, 34, 38, 38, and 40 (including the number number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, and the argument's ground for claim as a whole, the defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the above fees to the plaintiffs, as it occupies the land in question (including the distance from the line to the direct angle of the direction of the power transmission line from both sides of the power transmission line) and the steel tower site, and thus, the defendant has a duty to return the amount of the above fees to the plaintiffs as unjust enrichment.

As to the scope of unjust enrichment, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of the appraiser AA’s appraisal, the phrase “the date when the rent is calculated” in the attached Table 1, on July 23, 2005 or on which the plaintiffs acquired the ownership (including co-owned shares) of the relevant land, shall be the same as the amount indicated in the attached Table 1, “the rent for the airspace above the relevant land and the steel tower site” from the pertinent date to December 17, 2015, which is the base date for calculation. The rent for the airspace above the relevant land and the steel tower site as indicated in the attached Table 2, “number” as of December 18, 2015, and the rent for the monthly rent as of December 18, 2015, is also confirmed as the same amount. Meanwhile, according to the above evidence, the defendant is owned by the plaintiffs.