1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, since it is identical to the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the following cases:

2. Parts to be dried;

A. The fifth to sixth shall be followed by the following: (a) the fifth to seventh (6) of the judgment of the first instance.

As to this, the defendant asserts that since the plaintiff occupied and used a road for the possession of his communications line, but obtained permission to occupy and use the road or consulted with the defendant, there is no reason to bear the expenses for the relocation of the road, and since the plaintiff bears the expenses for the undergroundization of communications facilities by himself pursuant to the agreement with Handong-gu, it cannot be transferred to the defendant. Since each of the projects of this case bears the whole expenses for power distribution facilities under the Road Act, since the Handong-gu who was exempted from the charges for the occupation and use of power distribution facilities as a road extension works, the expenses for undergroundization of the plaintiff's communications facilities, which are only appurtenant works, should be borne by the defendant for the return of the expenses.

However, all the above arguments of the defendant are without merit for the following reasons.

(1) Article 39(1) of the former Telecommunications Business Act provides that “A key communications business operator may use a third party’s land or buildings, structures attached thereto, and surface and bottom (hereinafter referred to as “land, etc.”) if necessary to install lines, aerial lines, and facilities attached thereto, which are provided for telecommunications services. In such cases, a key communications business operator shall consult with the owner or occupant of the relevant land, etc. in advance.” However, a key communications business operator shall not be deemed to have violated the said provision by concluding a lease agreement with the former owner, and the Plaintiff who installed telecommunications facilities on the former owner cannot be deemed to have violated the said provision.