2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Therefore, the plaintiff did not appeal the whole part against which the defendant lost, but the part related to future unjust enrichment already occurred or may occur on April 21, 2017 is confirmed as it is with the judgment of the court of first instance (the part related to the claim ② and the part related to the claim) of unjust enrichment and damages for delay thereof from among the claims by withdrawing an appeal. Thus, the scope of trial of this court is limited to the part for which the defendant seeks removal of transmission lines from the judgment of the court of first instance (the part related to the claim ②).

2. There is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the cause of the claim, or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff is the owner of 4,654m2 (hereinafter "the land in this case"), and the defendant is obligated to remove the electric transmission line in this case on April 1, 2010, by installing the electric transmission line (hereinafter "the electric transmission line in this case") on the air space of 1,136m2 in the separate sheet Nos. 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1 among the land in this case, connecting each part of the land in this case with the point of 1,136m2 in the air space where the electric transmission line installed by the defendant was used and managed until now. Accordingly, the defendant is obliged to remove the electric transmission line in this case.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Since Article 89(1) of the Electric Utility Act explicitly states that one of the parties’ rights to use land under the Electric Utility Act may install electric lines in the air above the other party’s land, the said provision shall also apply even if prior consultation with the Plaintiff was not followed.