1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of ruling;

A. The Plaintiff A is the owner of the land previously C, 469 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), and the Plaintiff B is the person with the provisional registration right of the instant land and the person with the right to collateral security.

(b) Business approval and public notice - Electric Power Resource Development Business (D business; hereinafter referred to as the “instant business”): The public notice E announced by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy on February 14, 2014 - The defendant

(c) The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling of use made on September 17, 2015 - Subject to use: 652 square meters above 652 square meters over 47m or 65m over 65m among the instant land - The starting date for the use of divided superficies: November 10, 2015 - The usage compensation amounting to 14,425,50 won - the appraisal corporation: the Pacific appraisal corporation and the LAB appraisal corporation;

(d) The Central Land Expropriation Committee’s ruling on May 26, 2016 - Details of the ruling: Partial increase in compensation for losses: 15,051,420 won: - An appraisal corporation: An appraisal corporation which has maintained the previous ruling of use - An appraisal corporation which has no dispute over the fact that there is no ground for recognition / an appraisal corporation which has been in the conflict of interests, A(1) through 11, and B(including the number of each branch number), and the purport of the entire pleadings;

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The compensation money for the use of the instant land is due to the use of part of the public space for the passage of the transmission line. However, considering the surrounding land of this case, it is more reasonable to install a steel tower to F in the city F in the city near the land of this case and install the transmission line with the straight line to the transformation station. Thus, since it is more reasonable to install the transmission line with the straight line to the transformation station, the instant transmission line, which is planned to pass through the ground of this case, should be transferred as above. 2) If it is impossible to transfer the transmission line, the land of this case should be fully expropriated at the current market price.

3) The compensation for the use of the instant land, which was determined by the expropriation ruling and the objection ruling, should be increased because it is not only part of the benefits of its use. B. 1) Electric transmission lines.