Whether the occupation and use of roads as stipulated in Article 44 of the Road Act for the purpose of public use or public interest is for the Korea Electric Power Corporation to set up electric poles and occupy roads.

The meaning of the case of occupying and using a road under Article 44 of the Road Act refers to the case of a non-profit business for public use or public interest purpose, and the case of an electricity business operated by the Korea Electric Power Company, which is operated by the Korea Electric Power Company, has the nature of public interest, but at the same time, it cannot be deemed a non-profit business because it does not exclude the purpose of profit-making. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Korea Electric Power Company's occupation and use of a road for the purpose of public use or public interest under Article 4

Article 44 of the Road Act

Attorney Han-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Kang Tae-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Gwangju High Court Decision 73Gu68 delivered on May 3, 1974

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined to the purport that the approval of a public work project shall be determined by the nature of the project itself, and it shall not be determined by the project undertaker, and since the Electric Utility Act recognizes the public interest of the project that bears the social responsibility to supply electricity essential to our daily life without universal and discrimination, it recognizes the monopoly of the project, and at the same time recognizes the monopoly of the project, it is a thorough control and supervision. Therefore, in light of the contents of the Electric Utility Act, it shall not be a public work, and it shall not be a public work, and it shall be deemed that the use of the road by the plaintiff company established under the special law of the Korean Electric Power Corporation Act, which is a special law of the Korean Electric Power Corporation Act, occupies and uses the road for the supply of electric power, which is the primary exchange of the electricity business.

However, it is reasonable to interpret that the road occupation and use under Article 44 of the Road Act is referred to as a case for a non-profit business for public use or public interest purpose, and it is reasonable to interpret that it is referred to as a case for a non-profit business for public use or public interest purpose. If we consider that the provisions of Chapter II of the Korea Electric Power Co., Ltd. Act concerning the stocks are paid dividends for the private sector and that the provisions of the Commercial Act are applied to matters not specifically provided for in Article 5 of the same Act, the electricity business operated by the plaintiff company has the nature of public interest, but at the same time, it cannot be deemed a non-profit business because it does not exclude the purpose of profit-making, and therefore, the road occupation and use of this case by the plaintiff company cannot be deemed a non-profit business for public use or public interest purpose as provided for in Article 44 of the Road Act. However, there is an error of wrong interpretation of Article 44 of the Road Act, and there is a reasonable ground for appeal. It is decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Red Man-Man (Presiding Justice)