1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

A. On October 15, 2015, Sii-si approved and publicly notified an implementation plan for urban planning facilities with the content of building a road (the National Land Planning and Utilization Act No. 39 lines) on the luminous-dong and Hai-dong-dong (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) pursuant to Articles 88 and 91 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”). Around April 2016, Sii-si approved and publicly notified the modification of the implementation plan.

The Plaintiff is a project implementer who jointly carries out an urban planning facility project (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”) with Sistitu.

B. In the instant project section, there are 19 utility poles installed by the Defendant prior to the authorization of the said implementation plan for urban planning facilities. Among them, 15 of them are installed on the road on which the Defendant obtained permission from the Si-si to occupy and use the road, but the remaining 4 of them are installed on the road at a place other than the location the Defendant obtained permission to occupy and use the road or installed at the place where the permission was

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant poles”) four poles installed in the said private land.

The above permission to occupy and use the road granted to the defendant at Si of Si of Si of Si of Si is accompanied by the condition that "the permission to occupy and use may be revoked due to construction works for the public interest of Si of Si of Si of Si, and all facilities related thereto shall be voluntarily removed or relocated by the defendant, and all other compensation shall be waived

On the other hand, the Defendant did not acquire the right to possess and use the private land, which is the site, when establishing the electric land of this case.

On November 26, 2015, Si interesting City requested the Defendant to move to the former established within the instant project section for the implementation of the instant project.

However, around December 24, 2015, the Defendant demanded the payment of KRW 71,171,970 as the construction cost for the relocation only to the previous owner of the instant previous owner that was installed in the private land in the previous owner of the said previous owner at the time of Sistitu, and around April 6, 2016, as the construction cost for the said relocation.