1. As to Defendant case corporation, the following shall be applicable:

A. The part of the attached Form No. 2, among the 307 square meters in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F, is marked to the plaintiffs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The network A purchases a building of 307 square meters in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F (hereinafter “F land”) and its ground from G and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 31, 2001.

B. Defendant Kti Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant K”), among F land in around 1978, installs each of the electric poles on the part 0.03 square meters in the attached drawing (hereinafter “instant land”) and the part 0.02 square meters in the same drawing (hereinafter “third land”).

C. The Defendant Korea Electric Power Corporation set up electric poles in the attached Form 1, part 0.10 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) among F land before the network A completes the registration of ownership transfer as seen above, and owns it up until now.

The deceased filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendants, and died on June 5, 2018 during the course of the lawsuit, and the Plaintiff C, D, and E, one of her husband, took over the lawsuit as the inheritor.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the request for removal

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants’ owner in the lands owned by the Plaintiffs are established. Thus, barring any special circumstance, Defendant KW bears the duty to remove each of the former owners on the lands owned by the Plaintiffs, and Defendant Korea Electric Power Corporation bears the duty to remove each of the former owners on the lands owned by the Defendant No. 2, 3, and Defendant Korea Electric Power Corporation.

B. The Defendants asserted that the previous owners of F land and the network A renounced their exclusive use rights of land Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of this case, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ claim for removal is unreasonable.

In full view of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, the previous owners of F-land are against each share of F-Land Nos. 1, 2, and 3.