1. The defendant, among the lands listed in the attached Table 1 list, shall in sequence indicate 1 to 4, and 1 each point among the lands listed in the attached Table 1 list.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff purchased the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 15, 2005.

B. The Defendant is in possession and management of the transmission tower (hereinafter “the transmission tower of this case”) on the part (A) of 31 square meters in a ship which connects each point of the annexed drawings 1 to 4 and 1 on the ground of the instant real estate.

C. Meanwhile, on December 10, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the return of unjust enrichment against the Seoul Central District Court 2008Gahap11591, and rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation with the purport that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 6,979,926, and KRW 239,004 per month from October 1, 2009 to the date of removal of transmission line or the date of loss of Plaintiff’s ownership.” The Defendant paid the amount according to the said ruling of recommending reconciliation to the Plaintiff’s legal representative as of January 7, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, appraiser B's appraisal result

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff’s legitimate exercise of ownership on the instant real estate is hindered due to the establishment of the transmission tower owned by the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to remove the transmission tower of this case on the ground of the real estate and deliver a part of the site unless there is a special reason to the contrary.

B. The Defendant’s assertion and determination (1) The Defendant’s business of installing the transmission tower is aimed at stabilizing the supply of and demand for electricity, and it is practically impossible to remove the transmission tower and take enormous costs and time to move another place, while the Plaintiff’s profit derived from this is not significant, and the Plaintiff’s decision of recommending reconciliation by seeking unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent due to the transmission tower in the past.