1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 26, 2004, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name with respect to the land of Pyeongtaek-si B, 3967 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Defendant established a special high voltage tower and transmission line (hereinafter “the instant transmission line, etc.”) under 345kV’s voltage over the instant land over the present time, and used and managed it up to the present time. After entering into a superficies contract on January 10, 192, and completed the registration of creation of superficies on February 19, 192 (hereinafter “the instant superficies”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) set the superficies on the instant land for the construction and ownership of the instant transmission line, etc., but the scope of the superficies is limited to the steel tower site of 214 square meters and the 1383 square meters for the power transmission line site of 2006. However, according to the electrical facility technical standards established on July 4, 2006, the part of the instant land exceeding 214 square meters for the steel tower site of 214 square meters and 1383 square meters for the power transmission line of 1572 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

A) The Plaintiff’s land use with respect to the instant land is additionally restricted. In addition, due to the Defendant’s installation and use of electric transmission lines, etc., the remainder of 861 square meters (=3967 square meters - 214 square meters - 1383 square meters - 1572 square meters) with respect to the instant land, excluding each of the above areas among the instant land (hereinafter “the instant land No. 2 dispute”).

As the area of the plaintiff is too small, the plaintiff can not use it for the desired purpose.

Therefore, without any legal ground, the defendant gains the profit of the amount equivalent to the rent for the land in dispute Nos. 1 and 2 of this case. Accordingly, since the plaintiff suffered a loss equivalent to the same amount, the defendant suffered a loss to the plaintiff, the plaintiff from January 1, 2006 to the land in dispute No. 1 of this case.