1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

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

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding this case is as follows: (a) the court shall dismiss “from the 6th day of the same month” of the first instance judgment as “from the 7th day of the same month” of the first instance judgment; and (b) the reasoning of the first instance judgment is the same as that of the part of the first instance judgment, except for adding the judgment identical with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the instant approval disposition and use ruling are for the purpose of supplying electricity to the two private companies, while the public nature is considerably low, the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s final and conclusive judgment ordering the removal, etc. of transmission steel towers installed on the Plaintiff’s land (Ulsan District Court Decision 2015Da58753, Ulsan District Court Decision 2016Na22172, Ulsan District Court Decision 2017Da213692, supra) is invalidated in violation of Articles 23(3) and 37(2) of the Constitution, and Article 4(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act.

However, Article 2 of the Electric Power Source Development Promotion Act, which is the basis for the approval disposition and use decision of this case, provides not only the "project to install and improve the electric power source facilities" (a) but also the "project to acquire the right to use the land, etc. installed" (b) also as in this case, and if the existing electric power source development project is carried out through the same electric power source development project through the approval of the project implementation plan, the project approval disposition and the expropriation procedure after completely removing the electric power source facilities installed, it would result in a serious damage to the owner of the relevant land even if the same costs are incurred in the process, and the public function that the electric power source development project should be provided without interruption by the relevant electric power source development project, and the power transmission tower installed on the Plaintiff's land is I.