The meaning of an electricity supplier who is the owner of electric wire facilities under Article 64 (1) of the former Electric Utility Act

According to Article 64 (1) of the former Electric Utility Act (amended by Act No. 4214 of Jan. 13, 1990), if necessary for the operation of an electric utility business, an operator of the electric utility business may install electric lines in the space of land, etc. owned by another person after consultation with the owner of the land. However, according to Article 3 (2) through (7) and (10) of the same Act, an operator of the electric utility business refers to a general electricity business who supplies electricity to the general electricity business operator who supplies electricity in response to the general demand and a specific electricity business operator who installs a private electric structure and uses it only for his/her own purpose. Thus, a person who installs it does not constitute an operator of the electric utility business. Thus, he/she cannot install electric lines, etc. in the space of land owned by another person on the ground of Article 64 (1) of the same Act

Article 64 (1) of the former Electric Utility Act (amended by Act No. 4214 of Jan. 13, 1990) (see current Article 57 (1))

Plaintiff

Samyang Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Honam General Law Office, Attorney Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 97Na7652 delivered on April 3, 1998

The judgment below is reversed. The case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court recognized the following facts by comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted in its judgment, such as evidence No. 3-2 (Dismissal of Evidence).

The land of this case was originally owned by Nonparty 1, his father, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 3, who were his siblings, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Plaintiff on February 11, 1985 under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership.

On December 19, 1975, the non-party Jeonju District Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the " Jeonju District Co., Ltd.") ordered to install the electric transmission lines of this case 154KV capacity from the movable transformation station to its factory from the Korea Electric Power Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Seoul Yangyang Industries Co., Ltd.") on December 19, 197. Accordingly, on May 19, 1976, the remaining Yangyang Industries Co., Ltd. completed the construction of the electric transmission lines of this case on the ground specified in the purport of the claim of this case on the land of this case. The Defendant, around June 197, paid additional power demand due to the increase of the additional facilities of the Defendant’s factory, and used the electric transmission lines of this case to construct the electric transmission lines of this case on the first day through the joint use of the electric transmission lines of this case at the cost of the new installation of the electric transmission lines of this case on September 19, 199.

However, in order to compensate for losses under the former Electric Utility Act (wholly amended by Act No. 2509, Feb. 8, 1973; Act No. 4214, Jan. 13, 1990; hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), electric poles delegated compensation consultation and payment of compensation to the owners of the instant electric transmission lines to the Namyang Electric Power Business, the contractor. Accordingly, the Namyang Electric Power Business entrusted the owner of the instant electric transmission line with the owner of the instant electric transmission line to the effect that, from April 28, 1976 to May 21 of the same year, the installation of the instant transmission line and the installation of the instant transmission line did not raise any objection against the instant installation of the said line. In the process, the remaining owners of the instant land were entitled to individually compensate for the losses incurred by being restricted in the use of the land, and the owner of the instant land did not raise any objection against the said installation of the said line to the remainder 20th of the instant land with the owner of the instant land and the neighboring manager of the Plaintiff No. 1 and the remaining 20th of the instant land.

On October 5, 1973, the Plaintiff already transferred the instant land from Nonparty 1, etc. to Nonparty 1, etc., and was aware that Nonparty 1, etc. had a substantial interest in the restriction on the use of the instant land at the time of the said agreement with the Namyang Business, and did not raise any objection to the remaining Yangyang Business or Jeonju, even though he was aware that the construction of the electric transmission line was carried out on the instant land. On October 14, 1986, the Plaintiff did not raise any objection to the installation of the electric transmission line on the instant land while concluding a superficies contract on other land owned by the Plaintiff located in the vicinity of the instant land, but did not raise any objection with the Defendant on the installation of the electric transmission line on the instant land. Moreover, the Korea Electric Power Corporation or Jeonju did not reach an agreement with the owner during the electric transmission line construction. Accordingly, the Korea Electric Power Corporation applied for the approval of the instant land to the Do governor or applied for an adjudication on the failure to reach an agreement.

Based on the above facts, the court below held that the non-party 1 had the right to dispose of the land of this case on behalf of the co-owners at the time of the compensation agreement with the Namyang Industries, and it can be confirmed that the non-party 1 had the right to dispose of the land of this case on behalf of the co-owners of the land of this case and that the compensation agreement had been reached. Thus, the former is deemed to have lawfully acquired the right to install and use electric wires in the space on the ground stated in the purport of the claim, among the land of this case, and the plaintiff who acquired the ownership of the land of this case from the non-party 1 et al. with the knowledge of the above circumstances, was obliged to allow the possession and use of the space where the power transmission line of this case is installed, and therefore, the plaintiff is dismissed the claim for the removal of the power transmission line of this case

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Although a private document may be used as evidence only when its authenticity is proven, there is no special limitation on the method of proof, and in the case of a private document which has been proved by the other party as its site, the court may recognize that the document is authentic in accordance with the whole purport of oral pleadings, such as the materials such as the appearance, content, and material of the document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da21135, Nov. 24, 1992; 92Nu1650, Apr. 27, 1993; 96Da4572, Jul. 25, 197).

In light of the records, the court below's approval of the authenticity is acceptable by taking into account the contents, material materials, process of preparation, and the fact that non-party 4, who is a joint name, affixes the seal affixed to the name of the non-party 4 as to No. 3-2 of the evidence No. 3-2, which is employed in the above fact-finding process as above, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence. The grounds for appeal on this part cannot be

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to Article 64 (1) of the Act, an operator of the electric utility business may, if necessary for the performance of his business, install electric lines in the space of land, etc. owned by another person after consultation with the owner of the land. However, according to Article 3 (2) through (7) and (10) of the Act, an operator of the electric utility business at the time of supplying electricity to the general electricity business operator who supplies electricity in response to the general demand and the specific electricity business operator who mainly supplies electricity to him/her for the general electricity business, and a person who installs his/her own electric structure and uses it only for his/her own purpose does not constitute an operator of the electric utility business. Thus, such a person cannot install electric lines in the space of land owned by another person on the ground of Article 64

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below as seen earlier, the court below recognized that the electric poles installed the electric transmission line in order to attract electricity to the factory, and therefore if the factual relations exist, the electric poles are merely those who installed the electric structure for private use, not those who belong to the electric utility business under the law. Therefore, the electric poles do not have the right to install electric lines on another's land pursuant to Article 64 (1) of the Act, which applies only to the electric wire installation by the electric utility business operator.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the remaining electric power plant, which received the installation of the electric power line from the electric power plant from the electric power plant, is a legitimate right to use the space on the land of this case for the installation and use of the electric power plant in accordance with Article 64(1) of the Act, and therefore, the plaintiff who acquired the land of this case, knowing such circumstance, has a duty to allow the defendant who succeeded to the above title from the electric power plant to use the space on the land of this case, and therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the subject of the electric power plant installation under Article 64(1) of the Act. The part of the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)