2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Defendant, around 2001, installed 345k v New T/L (No. 58-59) and 345k v New T/L (no. 36) transmission lines (hereinafter “the transmission lines of this case”) in the air in the land located in the Singue Zone under the following sub-paragraph (b) as part of the construction project of the 345k New Power Power Station pursuant to Article 89 of the former Electric Utility Act (amended by Act No. 6283, Dec. 23, 2000; Act No. 9680, May 21, 2009); passed the pre-use inspection on November 30, 2001 and December 18, 2001.

B. On July 11, 2006, a housing site development plan was approved and publicly announced on January 18, 2007, and on October 27, 2009, the former Special Act on the Construction, etc. of Bogeumjari Housing (amended by Act No. 9511, Mar. 20, 2009; Act No. 10892, Jul. 21, 201; 2,000 from the date of converting the area into the Bogeumjari Housing Zone pursuant to Article 48 of the former Special Act on the Construction, etc. of Bogeumjari Housing (amended by Act No. 10892, Jul. 21, 201; 3, 2007; 4,000,000 from the date of the project to the date of the project to the date of the alteration of the Bogeumjari Housing Zone and its district plan to the date of the project to the extent of the project to the extent of the project to the extent of 15th, 2017.

C. On January 18, 2007, when approval for the housing site development plan was obtained for the SiYan District, or when approval for the instant project was obtained, the Plaintiff and the Defendant planned to relocate the instant transmission line located within the SiYan District. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the relocation and cost-bearing of the transmission line from April 2007 to October 201. The Plaintiff initially expressed an intention to bear the relocation cost of the local transmission line (the actual expression of intent was made by the Korea National Housing Corporation before the merger with the Plaintiff), but the Plaintiff did not reach an agreement with the Defendant, arguing that the subject to the burden of the relocation cost was the Defendant, as a result of reviewing the history of amendment under Article 72 of the Electric Utility Act from October 20, 2010.

D. Accordingly, on October 31, 201, the Plaintiff filed an application for a ruling with the Electrical Affairs Commission under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Knowledge Economy pursuant to Article 57 (1) 4 of the former Electric Utility Act (amended by Act No. 6283, Dec. 30, 200; Act No. 6637, Jan. 26, 201; hereinafter “the Electric Utility Act”) and Article 72 (2) proviso of the former Electric Utility Act (amended by Act No. 6637, Jan. 26, 202; hereinafter “the former Electric Utility Act”) amended by Act No. 6637, Jul. 27, 2002; hereinafter “637”).

E. Of the contents of Article 2 of the Addenda to the Electric Utility Act (Act No. 6637, Oct. 23, 2012, “owner or occupant of the land” means the owner or occupant of the land in question, on which the electric utility operator had previously consulted on the establishment of electric lines at the time of the installation of electric lines. As such, the Plaintiff owned or occupied the land after the installation of electric transmission lines, not subject to the aforementioned provision, and the Plaintiff was now dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition for adjudication on the ground that, in the present situation, it is unclear whether, if the Plaintiff constructs a building in the instant business zone, the transmission line

F. Meanwhile, according to the technical review service conducted at the request of the Plaintiff on September 2013, Korea General Design Corporation, when constructing a building in a commercial area within the instant commercial zone, the separation distance between electric wires and buildings within the electric transmission lines of the instant 345KV new T/L (No. . 58-No. 59) among the electric transmission lines of the instant case may not extend to 7.65 meters as stipulated in the “Standards for Determination of Electrical Equipment Standards (Electric Equipment)” (No. 2012-32, Ministry of Knowledge Economy No. 201, Jan. 31, 2012).

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3, and 5 evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Addenda to the Electric Utility Act (Act No. 6637) provides that an electricity service supplier under the proviso of Article 72(2) of the Electric Utility Act (Act No. 6283) shall bear the relocation expenses for the electric lines installed from the date of entry into force of the Electric Utility Act (Act No. 6637) to the date preceding the enforcement date of the said Act. However, the proviso of Article 72(2) of the Electric Utility Act (Act No. 6283) provides that the Defendant, an electricity service supplier, shall bear the relocation expenses in cases where the owner or occupant of the land installs the ground objects and other things on the land after installing the electric lines in the air above another person’s land. The Plaintiff falls under the “owner or occupant of the land” under the foregoing provision, and thus, falls under the “the owner or occupant of the land,” and thus, the Defendant shall bear the relocation expenses of the electric transmission lines.

2) The defendant's assertion

A) As the instant project, the instant transmission line installed by the Defendant and the electric installations and other goods that the Plaintiff would have installed may cause trouble or impediment to each other. Therefore, with respect to the relocation of the instant transmission line, Article 72(1) of the Electric Utility Act is first applied, and the Plaintiff, who provided the cause after the installation of the instant transmission line, shall take necessary measures to remove the hindrance or impediment, or bear the expenses to be incurred in taking such measures.

B) Even if Article 72(1) of the Electric Utility Act does not apply and Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Addenda to the Electric Utility Act (No. 6637) is applied, “owner or possessor of the land” under the aforementioned provision refers to the owner or possessor of the land at the time when the electricity supplier installs electric lines, and thus does not fall under the Plaintiff.

B. Determination

1) First, we examine the progress of the amendment of Article 72 of the Electric Utility Act before determining what the provisions applicable to the cost-bearing of the electric transmission line were needed due to the implementation of the instant business.

A) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 8, the following amendments are revealed.

(1) Article 43 of the former Electric Utility Act (amended by Act No. 6283 of Dec. 23, 2000) provides for the burden of expenses as follows.

(1) Where there is a reciprocal hindrance or obstruction between electrical facilities for the electricity business, private-use electrical facilities and electrical facilities of other persons and other things, the person who caused the hindrance or obstruction shall take measures necessary for the removal of the hindrance or obstruction or bear the expenses to be incurred for such measures.

(2) Where the electrical facilities for the electricity business fail to meet the technical standards by reason of the installation by other person of ground structures and other things, the installer of the ground structures and other things shall take necessary measures or bear the expenses to be incurred in taking such measures in order to make the electrical facilities in question comply with the technical standards: Provided, That this shall not apply where the owner or possessor of the land installs ground structures and other things on the land within one year from the date of the installation by electric lines in the airspace on the land of other person

(2) However, the date of criticism that the right to private property is restricted under Article 43(2) of the Electric Utility Act, Article 72 of the Electric Utility Act (No. 6283) was amended as follows. In particular, if the owner or possessor of another person’s land installs electric lines in the air above another person’s land by removing the part of “within one year” under the proviso of Article 72(2) and then installs ground objects and other things on the land, the owner or possessor of the land bears

(1) Where obstruction or obstruction occurs between electric installations for the electric utility or for private use and electric installations or other goods of another person, the person who has provided the cause shall take measures necessary for the removal of the obstruction or obstruction or bear the expenses to be incurred in taking such measures.

(2) Where any ground objects and other goods established by another person has caused the electric installations for the electric utility to fail to meet the technical standards, the person who has set up the ground objects and other goods shall take measures necessary for making the electric installations for the relevant electric utility to satisfy the technical standards or bear the costs required for such measures: Provided, That this shall not apply where the owner or occupant of the land establishes ground objects and other goods on the land of another person after setting up electric lines in the air above the land of another person pursuant to

(3) As above, when an electricity service supplier bears the expenses pursuant to the proviso of Article 72(2) of the Electric Utility Act (No. 6283), the landowner’s request for relocation continued, and accordingly, the enormous expenditure for the removal facilities and the difficulty in securing the relocation site occurred. Accordingly, the Electric Utility Act (No. 6637) amended or newly established Article 72(2), 3, and 4 of the Electric Utility Act (No. 72(1) as follows, and Article 2 of the Addenda provides for transitional measures.

(2) Where any ground objects and other goods established by another person has caused the electric installations for the electric utility to fail to meet the technical standards, the person who has established the ground objects and other goods shall either take measures necessary for making the relevant electric installations for the electric utility to satisfy the technical standards, or may request the operator of the electric utility to take necessary measures.

(3) An operator of the electric utility business shall, upon receipt of a request under paragraph (2), take necessary measures except for the cases as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as where he is unable to secure the site for relocation for such measures or where he is unable to make the said measures meet the technical standards, or where he is

(4) The expenses required for measures under paragraphs (2) and (3) shall be borne by the person who has set up the ground objects and other goods: Provided, That in the event that the owner or occupant of the land establishes the ground objects and other goods on such land after having set up electric lines in the air above the land of another person in accordance with Article 89, the relocation expenses may be reduced or exempted in accordance with the standards prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as the relocation plan for, and lapsed years

Addenda (Law No. 6637 of January 26, 2002)

Article 2 (Transitional Measures concerning Relocation, etc. of Electric Lines by Transfer, etc.)

Where the owner or occupant of land has installed, or has installed, ground objects and other goods on the land of another person after having established electric lines in the air above the land of another person in accordance with the previous provisions at the time this Act enters into force, with respect to the execution entity which is required to take necessary measures, such as relocation of electric lines so as to make the relevant electric lines not to meet the technical standards or to meet the technical standards, or to bear the expenses required for such measures

1. An operator of the electric utility under the proviso of Article 72 (2) of the Act on the Amendment of Electric Utility Act (Act No. 6283) with respect to the electric lines established not later than the enforcement date of this Act; and

(4) Subsequent to May 21, 2009, Article 72 of the Electric Utility Act (amended by Act No. 9680, May 21, 2009; hereinafter “Electric Utility Act”) accepted the provisions, structure, and content of the Electric Utility Act (Act No. 9637) and revised some expressions.

(5) Article 72(1) and (2) of the Electric Utility Act (amended by Act No. 10500, Mar. 30, 2011; hereinafter “Electric Utility Act”) added objects and businesses (type, subject, etc. of business) planned to install electric installations other than those already installed in order to take necessary corrective measures, such as removal and removal of electric installations as follows, and stipulated transitional measures under Article 72(2) of the Addenda.

(1) Where a mutual disability occurs or is likely to occur between electric installations for the electric utility or for private use and electric installations or any other goods or other goods of another person, the person who provided the cause shall, thereafter, take measures necessary for the removal of the disability or bear expenses to be incurred in taking such measures.

(2) Where any ground objects and other goods established or to be established by another person has caused or are likely to cause the electric installations for the electric utility to fail to meet the technical standards, the person who has set up or intends to set up the ground objects and other goods shall either take measures necessary for making the relevant electric installations for the electric utility to satisfy the technical standards, or may request the operator of the electric utility to take necessary

Addenda (Law No. 10500, March 30, 2011)

(2) The amended provisions of Article 72 shall apply to the expenses to be borne by the first project or installation due to ground objects or other objects, which are implemented after this Act enters into force.

B) According to the progress of the amendment of Article 72(1) and (2) of the Electric Utility Act, Article 72(1) and (2) of the Electric Utility Act maintain the principle that a cause provider shall bear the cost of the cause provider in the case of “where the mutual disability occurs or obstructs between electric facilities or between electric facilities and other things, or where the ground objects or other things installed by another person no longer conform to the technical standards” Provided, That the owner or occupant of another person’s land installs electric lines in the air above the land pursuant to Article 89(6) of the Electric Utility Act (Article 57 of the former Electric Utility Act before the Electric Utility Act enters into force, Article 57 of the former Electric Utility Act) and the owner or occupant of another person’s land shall bear the cost of installation of the ground objects or other things within one year from the date of construction, and the owner or occupant of the land shall bear the cost of installation of the electric lines within one year from the date of the completion of construction to the date of the removal of the electric lines from February 24, 2001.

2) Next, we examine whether the proviso of Article 2(1) and Article 72(2) of the Addenda of the Electric Utility Act (Act No. 6637) can be applied to the removal of transmission lines from the instant project, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

A) According to the district unit plan on the instant project, the following facts are planned to be constructed as commercial buildings of the fifth and seventh floors as the instant project, and according to the investigation conducted around September 2013 by the Korea Integrated Design Corporation, if a building is newly constructed in a commercial area within the instant commercial zone, the fact that the distance between electric wires and buildings of the electric transmission lines of this case falls short of 7.65 meters as set forth in the “Criteria for the Determination of Standards for Electric Equipment,” announced by the Minister of Knowledge Economy. Accordingly, the instant electric transmission line of this case as a building to be constructed as the instant project, would not meet the technical standards.

B) We examine the scope of “owner or possessor of the land” under Article 2 of the Addenda to the Electric Utility Act (Act No. 6637).

(1) In full view of the structure and content of the provisions of the Electric Utility Act No. 6637 and the amendment process of the Electric Utility Act No. 6637, the following points are confirmed.

① Article 2 of the Addenda to the Electric Utility Act (Act No. 6637) provides that “after the establishment of electric lines in the air above another person’s land at the time of entry into force of this Act.” The term “previous provision” refers to Article 89(1) of the Electric Utility Act (Act No. 6283). According to the said provision, an operator of the electric utility business shall consult with the owner or possessor of the land when he installs electric lines in the air above another person’s land. In addition, the owner or possessor of the land is limited to the owner or possessor of another person’s land who again sets up the land as “the owner or possessor of the land and other things.” In light of the form of such provision, it is reasonable to view that the owner or possessor of the land “the owner or possessor of the land agreed at the time of installation of electric transmission lines in the air above another person’s land, as alleged by the Plaintiff, is not only at the time of installation of electric transmission lines, but also at the time of acquisition of ownership or possession of the land.”

② If an owner or possessor of a parcel of land installs electric lines in the air above another person’s land, and then the owner or possessor of the parcel of land establishes a ground object and other objects on the parcel of land, it is understood that the Electric Utility Act allows an operator of the electric utility business to bear the relocation cost (No. 6283) and the owner or possessor of the parcel of land to bear the relocation cost (No. 6637) and to protect the owner or possessor of the parcel of land at the time when the exercise of property right is restricted due to the installation of the transmission line. However, if the above provision is broadly interpreted to include not only the owner or possessor of the parcel of land whose real exercise of property right was restricted by the installation of the transmission line, but also the person who acquired the ownership or possessor’s right to the parcel of land for the purpose of gaining profits through the development of the parcel of land, it is unreasonable to reduce or exempt the ownership or possessor’s right to use the parcel of land for the purpose of obtaining profits through the development of the transmission line, in light of the purport of the above provision.

③ Since the proviso of Article 72(2) of the Electric Utility Act (Act No. 6283) was established, the owner’s request for removal of the electric transmission line continued, and enormous expenses for the removal facility and the difficulty in securing the removal site occurred, as seen earlier, the Electric Utility Act (Act No. 6637) revised to allow the owner or possessor of the land to bear the cost again but to reduce or exempt the cost. In light of the process of amendment of the Electric Utility Act, it is reasonable to deem that the cost borne by the electric utility operator pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Addenda to the Electric Utility Act (Act No. 6637) is limited to the case where the owner or possessor of the land consulted at the time of installation of the transmission line installs the ground objects or other things on the land.

(2) Considering the above point, the term “owner or possessor of the land” in Article 2(1) and the proviso of Article 72(2) of the Addenda of the Electric Utility Act (Act No. 6637) refers to the owner or possessor of the land for which the electricity service supplier has consulted at the time of installing the transmission line. The Plaintiff who acquired the ownership of the land on the site after the installation of the transmission line is not subject to the said provision.

C) Therefore, pursuant to Article 2(1) and the proviso of Article 72(2) of the Addenda of the Electric Utility Act (Act No. 6637), the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant is the subject of the burden of installing the electric transmission line of this case cannot be accepted.

3) Furthermore, we examine who is the subject of the burden of the relocation cost of the instant transmission line.

A) Whether Article 72(1) of the Electric Utility Act (10500) is applied

(1) The foregoing provision provides for the addition of goods and businesses planned to be installed in addition to those already installed in order to take corrective measures, such as the removal of electric installations, but it also provides that the foregoing provision shall apply from the assumption of the cost due to the ground objects or other objects to be installed, which were first implemented after the enforcement of November 1, 201.

(2) The project of this case was converted to the Bogeumjari Housing District on October 27, 2009 and approved for the alteration of the Bogeumjari Housing District and the alteration of the district plan on December 30, 2009. The district unit plan of the project of this case is designated as eight commercial areas in the district unit plan of the project of this case, and the fact that the district unit plan of the project of this case is planned to build the buildings of five to seven stories on that ground is recognized earlier.

(3) Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the instant project and buildings to be constructed therefrom constitute “ground objects or other objects first implemented or to be installed after the enforcement of this Act” as prescribed by the Addenda of the Electric Utility Act, 201. Ultimately, with respect to the instant project, Article 72(1) of the Electric Utility Act (Act No. 10500) cannot be applied, and Article 72(1) of the Electric Utility Act (Act No. 9680), which is prior to the amendment, can be applied.

B) Whether Article 72(1) of the Electric Utility Act (Act No. 9680) is applied

(1) In the event that an occurrence or obstruction occurs between electric installations for the electric utility or electric installations for private use and electric installations or other goods of another person, the person who thereafter made the cause shall either take measures necessary for the removal of the obstruction or obstruction or bear the expenses to be incurred for such measures.

(2) The purport of the above provision is to set the person liable to remove the disability or impediment or to bear the cost of removal in a case where the failure or impediment occurs to the original function of the electric installations or the goods, other than the electric installations, are approaching each other, and they are determined by the person who provided the cause later (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da83936, May 14, 2009, etc.).

(3) The circumstances revealed in the above basic facts are as follows.

① According to the district unit plan regarding the instant project, in particular, the commercial buildings of the fifth and seventh stories (land-to-land ratio of 70%, floor area ratio of 500% or less) will be constructed on the instant project district, and in the instant transmission line site, the existing transmission lines that are installed are bound to be transferred out of the commercial area if commercial buildings of the size and height are constructed.

② According to the technical review services on matters concerning interference with the existing transmission lines at the time of the construction of a new commercial eight district building in the instant commercial district, which was investigated by the Korea Comprehensive Design Corporation around September 2013, the distance of separation of the buildings to be constructed as the instant business is considerably less than 7.65 meters as set forth in the standards for determining electric installations standards publicly notified in Article 2012-32 of the Ministry of Knowledge Economy, and thus is virtually unable to function.

③ The Plaintiff asserts that the transfer of the instant transmission line does not constitute an obstacle or disturbance to the original function of the transmission line. However, from the point of view that the instant transmission line should not be functioned and transferred when the instant construction is installed as the instant project, the transfer of the transmission line itself can be deemed as “a failure or disturbance to the original function.”

④ Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Defendant first requested the relocation of the underground transmission line of this case and accordingly, the cause provider for the relocation of the underground transmission line is the Defendant. However, as a matter of the method of the relocation of the electric transmission line of this case, the issue is whether to simply relocate the electric transmission line to the processing line, or to transfer the underground transmission line to the underground transmission line is determined through a separate consultation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Even if the Defendant first requested the relocation of the underground transmission line, this is not the Defendant, and thus, the cause provider of the relocation of the electric transmission line of this case is not the Defendant.

(4) Comprehensively taking account of the foregoing circumstances, it is clear that the building to be constructed as the instant project obstructs or impedes the original function of the transmission line of this case, and it is reasonable to view the cause provider as the Plaintiff.

(5) Therefore, pursuant to Article 72(1) of the Electric Utility Act (Act No. 9680), the Plaintiff, a cause provider, is obligated to take necessary measures to remove the disability or interference or to bear the expenses incurred in taking such measures, i.e., the expenses incurred in relocating the electric transmission line of this case (i.e., the relocation of the electric transmission line of this case does not interfere with the original function of the transmission line, and thus, the said provision does not apply, insofar as the relocation of the electric transmission line of this case is necessary to complete the Bogeumjari Housing District Development Project approved by the Plaintiff, such relocation expenses shall be borne by the Plaintiff in accordance with the principle of the

C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that the provider of the cause of the relocation to the underground transmission line of this case is the Defendant is also without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park So-young (Presiding Judge)