1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. Within the C-A-Sed Housing District among the A-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is as follows: “A transmission line out of the instant transmission line” is “the instant transmission line”; “building 4 lines out of the instant transmission line” is “a building with a height of 21 meters (=3m ordinarily high 3m x 7m)”; thus, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance court, and thus, it is cited pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and relevant provisions

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that “the relocation of the instant transmission line is in accordance with the Defendant’s regionalization plan, and the Defendant provided the cause. However, even if such facts are acknowledged, the legal grounds for deeming that the Defendant should bear the said relocation cost are unclear, and it is difficult to deem that the relocation of the instant transmission line was caused by the Defendant. Therefore, it is without merit. The instant transmission line is established in the air above another person’s land located within the C district under Article 89 of the Electric Utility Act (No. 6283) and Article 89 of the said Act, and according to the district unit plan of the instant business executed by the Plaintiff, the owner of the said land, the construction of the above seven-story electric wires, and thus, it is not appropriate for the Defendant to resolve the foregoing provision of Article 28(2) of the Electric Utility Act to the extent that the distance and the distance of the instant transmission line cannot be applied to the building and the instant provision of Article 7(2)6(3) of the Addenda of the said Act (hereinafter “the instant provision”).