1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff is an implementer of the Cridge construction project, which is a road construction project that expands A’s local highway B into six-lanes (hereinafter “instant construction project”), and the managing authority of the said road.

The instant construction project is a project implemented by the Plaintiff for the purpose of expanding existing roads into six-lanes according to the formulation of a road maintenance master plan under the Road Act, as the demand for nearby local highways B is anticipated due to C.

The Defendant set up a total of 17 main poles in the private land among the instant construction sections (hereinafter “instant main poles”). Among them, 12 main poles are installed on a road which was already publicly announced and opened as a road zone before the instant construction is implemented.

B. Meanwhile, the Defendant obtained permission to occupy and use only the initial electric poles and electric wires, but without permission to change after the installation of the instant electric poles, the Defendant added three communications lines (hereinafter “instant communications lines”) to the telecommunications lines of three companies (D, E, and F) without permission. The Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to transfer the instant electric poles and telecommunications lines due to the instant construction. However, the Defendant could move to the telecommunications lines to be removed, which is a matter of resolution between the Plaintiff and three companies.

In conclusion, for the smooth progress of the construction, the Plaintiff paid 50 million won, which is a part of the instant communications line’s facilities, to the 3rd radio operator, and the 3rd radio operator resumed the construction interrupted by establishing the communications line.

C. The construction of this case was already installed in a road zone by the Plaintiff, who is a road management authority, but the former owner of this case is subject to the reduction of or exemption from the occupation and use fees with the permission granted for the former owner of this case. Thus, the former owner of this case and the communications line are obligated to move to the Defendant at the Defendant’s expense. The Defendant added the telecommunications line to the former owner of this case.