Accordingly, the defendant appealed only to the part of the plaintiff's claim against him (the part on removal and request for the delivery of the site), and the part (the part on the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment) was not appealed, and the part was finally determined as it is.

Therefore, the scope of this Court's trial is limited to the claim ① in the judgment of the first instance.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. (1) The Plaintiff purchased real estate listed in the [Attachment 1] List and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 30, 2005.

(2) The Defendant established a transmission tower (hereinafter “the transmission tower in this case”) on the 102 square meters of the transmission tower (hereinafter “the transmission tower in this case”) which connects each point of the 1,354 square meters of the attached Table 2 of the instant real estate, - the e-mail, the e-mail, the e-mail, the e-mail, the e-mail, the e-mail, and the e-mail, and the 1,354 square meters of the attached Table 1 of the instant real estate to the e-mail (hereinafter “the transmission line in this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 8, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, since the establishment of the transmission tower of this case owned by the Defendant and the passage of the transmission line interferes with the Plaintiff’s legitimate exercise of ownership on the real estate of this case, the Defendant is obligated to remove the transmission tower and the transmission line on the ground of this case and deliver each part of the site to the Defendant, barring special circumstances.

3. Determination as to the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserts the abuse of rights (1) The Defendant is required to remove the transmission tower of this case and the transmission line and to locate another place in order to ensure the stability of the supply and demand of electricity.