1. Each of the actions of Plaintiffs C, D, E, F, and H shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant shall list the amount of unjust enrichment in attached Form 3 to the plaintiff A, B, and G.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are owners who completed each registration of ownership transfer on the date indicated in the column for “acquisition date” with respect to each of the pertinent real estate (hereinafter “each of the instant land”) as indicated in the attached Form 1’s land ownership (the Plaintiff B transferred the entire ownership of each of the instant land to a third party on June 10, 2016), and the Defendant is a construction corporation established under the Korea Electric Power Corporation Act for the purpose of power generation, transmission, distribution, and business related thereto.

B. The Defendant, prior to acquiring the ownership of each of the instant lands, has installed a power transmission line of 154kV or 345kV (hereinafter “electric transmission line of this case”) in the airspace above each of the instant lands, and manages it until now.

【Ground of recognition-based dispute】 without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion without legitimate title establish the instant transmission line over each land of this case, and thus, the defendant is obliged to return the plaintiffs' profit equivalent to the rent to the extent of the separation distance (4.78m, 345kV line: 7.65m, hereinafter "legal separation distance") under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes from both ends of the right and the right and right of the transmission line. Since the plaintiffs have suffered a loss equivalent to the same amount, the defendant is obligated to return the rent to the plaintiffs.

In addition, the defendant constitutes a malicious beneficiary, and thus, the defendant should pay interest on unjust enrichment equivalent to the above rent, unjust enrichment, and delay damages to the plaintiff.

3. The decision of recommending a compromise shall have the same effect as a judicial compromise if there is no objection within the prescribed period against the decision of recommending a compromise as to the legitimacy of the claims of plaintiffs C, D, E, F, and H (Article 231 of the Civil Procedure Act). On the other hand, a judicial compromise has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment and has the same effect as a creative one, and thus, if a compromise