1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,549,200 among the Plaintiff’s KRW 6,456,90 from July 20, 2007 to KRW 8,850,300.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 22, 2004, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Plaintiff’s future on December 22, 2004 with respect to the building of 1,075 square meters in the B warehouse site in Gwangju-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. From around 192, the Defendant installed a transmission line over part of the instant land and owned and managed it, as shown in the annexed sheet. The area of the non-owned land (the land vertically corresponding to the vertical area within the scope of adding three meters to the horizontal distance from both outer lines of the above transmission line) is 420 square meters as shown in the annexed sheet.

C. On December 3, 2010, the Defendant concluded a contract to establish a sectional superficies for the establishment and noise of transmission lines and steel tower without the instant vessels, and completed the registration of the sectional superficies.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In a case where a landowner becomes restricted from using the airspace above the land by passing through a high voltage cable over the airspace above the land, barring any special circumstance, the owner of the land may seek return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the airspace above the land where the use of the said cable is restricted. In this case, in a case where the provisions on the airspace above the airspace passing through the high voltage cable and the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes stipulate that a certain distance between the high voltage cable and the structure shall be maintained, the airspace above the distance is restricted from the land owner’s use (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da58544, Jan. 15, 2009; 2005Da14083, Apr. 13, 2006). According to the above recognition facts, the Defendant, without a legitimate title, incurred damage to the Plaintiff by installing and using the steel tower over the ground of this case before entering into a contract with the Plaintiff.