Whether a tort is established if the power line of the building was cut before the joint expropriation procedure for the building is completed.

The power line was cut in advance so that it does not interfere with the removal work without consultation or adjudication procedures for the building expected to be removed.

Article 756 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Korea Electric Power Corporation

Seoul Central District Court (75 Gohap3696) in the first instance trial

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 737,30 and the amount at the rate of 5 percent per annum from the day from the day of service to the day of full payment.

The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

In light of the purport of the oral argument, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 4, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-5, the non-party 1, the non-5.

According to the above recognition, although Nonparty 1 cut the power line as above at the request of the Yongsan-gu Office, it is doubtful whether the acceptance procedure under the Urban Planning Act has been completed only in light of Nonparty 7’s speech and behavior, who is an employee of the Yongsan-gu Office, at that time. In such a case, it is clear that Nonparty 1 cut the power line of the building that was not under consultation or adjudication procedure due to public expropriation, even though it is necessary for the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the building in Seoul Special Metropolitan City or the building in this case, to confirm whether the building in this case became final and conclusive as the object of removal and the time of removal, etc., and then cut electricity line immediately before the removal of the building in this case.

However, the defendant cut the power line of the building of this case by the non-party 1, 1, 2, and 3, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, would remove the building of this case, which is the object of public expropriation for urban planning projects, and thus, cut off upon the request so that the above removal work would not be impeded. Therefore, it is legitimate as it cut off the building, and the consent of the occupants of this building was obtained at the time of cutting the above power line, and in this case, the so-called defendant company's claim for damages caused by the tort is unfair since it does not constitute a tort that is a requirement that actively infringes on other's rights, even if it is not a tort that is not proper to supply electricity under the Electric Utility Act and the same provisions. (In view of the defendant's non-performance, the plaintiff is not a party, and the plaintiff is not a party, and the plaintiff is not a party).

According to the above recognition, as long as it is obvious that the act of cutting the power line of the building in this case was caused by the negligence of Nonparty 1 before the completion of the procedure for expropriation of the building in this case, the mere fact that it was done at the request of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City cannot be deemed unlawful, and there is no evidence to prove that some of the entries of the evidence No. 1 and the testimony of Nonparty 1 of the court below witness No. 1 in this case at the time of cutting the power line, and some of the testimony of the non-party No. 1 in the court below, are hard to believe, and it is evident that the act of the non-party 1 in this case constitutes a tort against the plaintiff who is the owner of the building in this case, and the defendant is liable for the above tort due to the negligence in the course of performing his duties. Thus, the defendant's above dispute cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the defendant shall be liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the above power line cutting, and the amount of such damages shall be examined.

In full view of the contents of Gap evidence 1-1 to 7 (the monthly rent of 50 won) which is recognized by the testimony of the non-party 8 1-2 x the non-party 1-2 x the non-party 1-6 x the non-party 10-6 x the non-party 10-6 x the non-party 10-6 x the period of 0-6 x the non-party 10-6 x the non-party 10-6 x the non-party 10-6 x the non-party 10-6 x the non-party 10-6 x the non-party 10-6 x the non-party 10-6 x the non-party 9-6 x the non-party 10-6 x the non-party 10-6 x the non-party 9-6 x the non-party 1-6 x the non-party 1-6-month period respectively.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from November 18, 1975 to the full payment system, which is clear that the part of the complaint of this case was delivered to the defendant as the plaintiff's 644,96 won of tax imposed on the plaintiff and the part of the plaintiff's 644,96 won and the part of the complaint of this case are the day following the delivery of the complaint to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above recognition range, and the remainder is dismissed as just and without merit. Thus, the judgment below is dismissed as the defendant's appeal is without merit. The

Judges Park Woo-young (Presiding Judge)