(a) Whether the land owner’s damage was incurred due to the installation and passage of the power transmission line, if the height permitted for construction does not reach the height above the upper part of the power transmission line with the statutory separation distance;

B. The case holding that the claim for return of unjust enrichment cannot be deemed as a violation of the good faith on the sole ground that the landowner did not raise any objection to the installation of the power transmission line for ten years or consented to the use of the steel tower site.

(a) Even though the height allowed to construct a building on the land under the relevant laws and regulations is less than the height fixed on the lower side of the high voltage power transmission line, such reasons alone cannot be said that the Korea Electric Power Corporation cannot cause damage to the landowner due to the installation and transit of the power transmission line to the airspace above the land;

B. The case holding that the claim for return of unjust enrichment cannot be deemed as a violation of the good faith merely because the land owner did not raise any objection to the installation of the power transmission line for ten years or consented to the use of the steel tower site.

(a) Article 212(b) of the Civil Act; Articles 2 and 741 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Scenic Transportation Corporation

Korea Electric Power Corporation (Attorney Kim Sung-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na2352 delivered on May 13, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal.

The land ownership extends not only to the ground but also to the public, and the plaintiff is not able to use the space above the land of this case only for the purpose of constructing a building. Thus, even though the height allowed to construct a building on the land of this case, such as the household theory does not fall short of the height with a certain distance set below the high voltage power transmission line of this case, it cannot be said that even if the defendant installed and passed the transmission line of this case to the air above the land of this case, it cannot be said that the plaintiff could not cause damage to the plaintiff due to the restriction on the use of the land. Thus, the argument against this cannot be accepted.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff did not raise any objection to the establishment of the instant transmission line for ten (10) years after the Plaintiff acquired the instant land, or consented to the use of the steel tower site adjacent to the instant transmission line solely on the ground that the Plaintiff’s right was invalidated, or the Plaintiff’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment in the instant case cannot be deemed to violate the good faith principle, the lower court is justifiable and the lower court did not err in the misapprehension of legal doctrine. It did not err in the misapprehension of legal doctrine.

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

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)