In a case where the site of the steel tower or cable installed through the procedure for compensation for losses is known and purchased, the legal relationship thereof;

The Korea Electric Power Company paid a land use fee as the compensation for losses under Article 12 of the former Electric Utility Act for the installation of a steel tower and electric cable, and acquired a legitimate title to the possession and use of the steel tower site and electric cable above the airspace with the approval of the owner or possessor of the land. If the right is not registered, it shall not be deemed a real right, but the land use fee shall be deemed the price for the use of the land until the steel tower and electric cable are preserved, barring any special circumstances. Thus, the owner of the steel tower at the time of the completion of the installation of the steel tower and electric cable shall be limited to the ownership of the land within the scope of the use and profit-making of the steel tower and electric cable constructed through the above procedure. Since the purchaser of the land, knowing that the steel tower and electric cable are installed, has acquired the ownership already restricted to the use and profit-making right as to the parts of the steel tower and electric cable, he/she shall not claim compensation for losses again or for damages.

Articles 11 and 12 of the former Electric Utility Act (Law No. 953, Dec. 31, 1961)

Supreme Court Decision 71Da265 Delivered on April 20, 1971

[Judgment of the court below]

Korea Electric Power Corporation et al., Counsel for defendant

Daegu High Court Decision 87Na392 delivered on February 23, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the facts established by the court below, the deceased non-party 1, who is the original owner of the land of this case, died while leaving the unborn non-party 2, and his family living together with the above non-party 3 cultivated and managed all the properties within the house of this case, and the Korea Electric Power Corporation, the telegraph of the defendant, at around 1963, under the provisions of Articles 11 and 12 of the former Electric Utility Act, is the possessor of the land of this case at the time of consultation with the above non-party 3, who managed the land of this case, at 10,00 won, and completed the steel tower and the electric wire of this case on the land of this case with the consent of the above non-party 3. If the above facts acknowledged by the court below, the non-party 1, who is the original owner of the land of this case, was not entitled to the above non-party 2's right to use the above steel tower and the right to use the land of this case, and if the above rights cannot be viewed as the right to use the land of this non-party.

With respect to the second ground:

If 10,000 won was paid as compensation for land use until the existence of the said steel tower and cable, the Korean War is compensated in accordance with Article 12 of the former Electric Utility Act. Thus, even if the compensation for the said damage is different from the actual amount equivalent to the land rent, it cannot be deemed as unjust enrichment by the Korean War or the Defendant, and the Plaintiff who succeeded to the instant land cannot seek the return of the said damage.

Therefore, this paper is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)

The name, sealed Kim Young-ju who is a leap business trip.