A. The Defendant Korea Electric Power Corporation, around May 26, 200, installed four utility poles on the ground of the attached Table No. 1, 2, 3, and 0.1 square meters of forest land (hereinafter “the instant land”) owned by the Plaintiff, in order to supply electricity following Defendant B’s application for electricity use (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Defendant B, among the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, installed a steel network on the ground of the part (b) size of 662 square meters in a ship connected with each point of the attached Table 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 6, and 19 in sequence among the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, and did not occupy it any longer after removing the steel network on November 8, 2015, while he occupied the part (b).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 8 evidence, Eul 1 to 1 evidence (including paper numbers) or images, the result of the survey and appraisal conducted by appraiser D, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claim against the Defendants for removal, etc.

A. The Defendants asserted by the Plaintiff jointly remove 4 utility poles installed in the part of the instant land (1) through (4) in accordance with the Plaintiff’s claim for exclusion of interference based on the Plaintiff’s ownership, and have the duty to deliver the parts (1) through (4) and return unjust enrichment from July 26, 2009 due to the possession of land due to the installation of four utility poles.

B. As to the assertion on Defendant B, the instant telegraph State 4 was established by the Korea Electric Power Corporation and has the right to own or dispose of the land.

The mere fact that Defendant Korea Electric Power Corporation established and supplied electric power according to Defendant B’s application for the use of electric power, and received the payment for the use of electric power from Defendant B, it cannot be said that Defendant B has occupied the part (1) through (4) where the electric utility owner has the ownership or the right to actually dispose of the said four utility poles.

There is no evidence to acknowledge the possession relationship between Defendant B with regard to the four utility poles above.

Therefore, the plaintiff.