(1) Of the principal claim against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) Co., Ltd., the right of lease registration is claimed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted reveals the following facts.

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a corporation established under the Korea Electric Power Corporation Act.

Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) is a legal entity that operates “D”, which is a golf course located in Yeongdeungpo-si, Young-si.

Defendant Lessee Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) is a corporation operating “E”, which is a golf course adjacent to the same Gu.

Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant DD”) is an affiliate affiliated to the F Group, together with Defendant A and C.

The G Co., Ltd., a farming company (hereinafter referred to as the "G") is a farming company established for the management of farmland in the vicinity of E and is a farming company of Defendant C.

H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) is a company that received land owned by Defendant C as a collateral trust.

B. In around 2004, the Plaintiff promoted 345kV L-M railroad construction projects in preparation for electric demand according to the large-scale development plan (I and J) in the Southern-do Southern-do area.

When the plan was established that part of the power transmission lines in the section of the power transmission steel tower run by Defendant A passes through the airspace around thewest of Defendant A, Defendant A filed a civil petition to modify the plan to pass the above 345k V transmission lines to the outer range D around May 2004.

The plaintiff consulted with the defendant A about the adjustment of the height of steel tower and the change of the progress for the prompt resolution of civil petitions and the completion of construction.

C. On June 2, 2004, Defendant A received on June 2, 2004, the above 345kV transmission line passed through the airspace around D, as originally planned by the Plaintiff, and instead, Defendant A passed the airspace above D, Defendant A, which Defendant C operated, from among the 154kV L transmission lines, the number of the steel tower indicated in the annexed map No. 5 of the lower judgment, Q-R No. 5, and the transmission line below the transmission tower.