1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

On November 25, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement for installation of communications equipment, steel tower, etc. with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) on the instant land and leased the instant land in a way that re-contracts at the expiration of the said period.

On October 11, 2016 between the Plaintiff and D, the rent of KRW 3,500,000 per annum under the lease agreement concluded again on October 11, 2016 is until September 5, 2019.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement” in total). Article 9 of the instant lease agreement provides that “If equipment of a broadcasting business operator is installed within the leased area of D’s communications facilities (such as electric poles, steel towers, etc.), D shall, in principle, be jointly operated with the relevant business operator without additional burden after consultation with the Plaintiff.”

The Defendant entered into an agreement with D on December 16, 2009 on the common use of radio station infrastructure between mobile operators (hereinafter “instant agreement”) and paid the fees for common use in D, and used the Defendant’s communications device, etc. in D’s wire tower for communications.

At the time of the instant lawsuit, the part (hereinafter “the instant container”) indicated as “1X” out of the evidence No. 3 of the Defendant’s container boxes owned by the Defendant was installed next to the instant steel tower installed by D (hereinafter “the instant steel tower”) on the instant land. However, during the course of the lawsuit, the Defendant removed the instant container.

In addition, the steel tower of this case is accompanied by communication equipment such as heavy meters owned by the defendant.

Of the evidence Nos. 3, the part indicated as “RH” among the evidence Nos. 6-1, 2, 6-2, and 6-3 (based on recognition), there is no dispute. The Plaintiff’s overall purport of the statement and image of the evidence Nos. 1 through 8, 15, and 1 through 9, and the entire purport of the pleading is as follows: the communication facilities owned by the Defendant even after the removal of the container of this case.