2012du15746 Liability for Expenses to be borne by a person responsible for causing a road (the cost of excavating and restoring a road)

1. ELS Co., Ltd.;

2. Esbro World Co., Ltd.;

3. 에스케이네트웍스 주식회사

4. Diplomatic Co., Ltd.

5. Sejong Telecom Co., Ltd.

6. Co., Ltd.: C&M engineering cable duct.

(Trade Name before Change: ZSnam Broadcasting Co., Ltd.

The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Du35769 Decided May 25, 2012

November 14, 2013

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found facts as stated in its reasoning based on its adopted evidence, and found it as follows: (1) the plaintiffs have no legal obligation to use the underground communications line in the telecommunications service industry, etc.; (2) even if the plaintiffs did not obtain permission to occupy and use the underground communications line, the defendant, a road management agency, did not have any legal basis to order the plaintiffs to relay the underground communications line; (3) the defendant did not issue an order to relay the underground communications line to the plaintiffs; and (4) the defendant was merely executing the underground transmission of the communications line through consultation with the plaintiffs; and (4) in order to achieve the administrative purpose of creating an eco-friendly resting and walking space, the court below determined that the disposition of this case was unlawful for the plaintiffs to bear the expenses of the construction of the underground transmission line, even if the defendant excavated and restored the road without obtaining permission to occupy and use the road, since it cannot be deemed that there was a proximate causal relation between the temporary installation of the underground transmission line without obtaining permission.

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below and the evidence admitted by the court below, such judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the circumstances of the landization construction of this case, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to discretionary acts in determining the necessity of the landization construction of

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Shin Young-chul

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Kim Gin-young