(A) Although the Plaintiff extended the claim for damages against Defendant S in the appellate trial and added the claim for damages against the remaining Defendants, the above claim for damages, separate from the claim for return of unjust enrichment, can not be accepted on the same ground as the part concerning the “determination on the claim for damages against Defendant I” from the 10th to the 11th th th th th th th 4th son of the judgment of the first instance court, provided that the following determination is added to the assertion of Defendant S.

2. Further determination by Defendant S provides that “When the owner of land fails to pass through another person’s land, he/she is unable to install electric wires, etc. or requires excessive costs, he/she may pass through another person’s land and install such facilities” under Article 218 of the Civil Act.

In order to move the power line 2, which plays an important role in supplying electricity to another place or to install a new power line to install a new power line, the plaintiffs are obligated to authorize the operator of the power line 2 to pass through the forest of this case owned by the plaintiffs under Article 218 of the Civil Code, and the defendant S has the right to install or own the power line 2.

The provisions of the Civil Act, etc. on the merchant relations for controlling the mutual use of adjacent land, shall impose on the owner of the adjacent land the obligation to impose restrictions on his/her ownership. Therefore, the application requirement cannot be relaxed or inferredly applied, and it exceeds the scope of the liability for authorization pursuant to the provisions on the merchant relations.