부당이득금반환
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
judgment of the first instance.
Details of the conclusion of a gas supply contract and methods of calculating gas prices;
A. On February 20, 2003, the Plaintiff, a gas supplier, entered into a supply contract with the Defendant for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) (hereinafter “instant contract”) and began to supply gas to the Defendant.
On February 19, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant renewed the instant contract every one year and supplied gas until the termination of the contract at the expiration of the period.
B. The Plaintiff supplied gas in a liquid form to a gas storage facility located in the Defendant’s Defendant’s workplace after putting the gas in a liquid form as a burner, and maintaining a certain pressure (H20mH20m) with a static pressure (7,000mH20m).
C. According to the instant contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant calculated the gas price for the relevant month on the basis of the amount of gas usage measured on a physical basis through measuring instruments each month, and measured the gas from the Defendant’s gas storage facilities in December of each year by weight, thereby settling the total amount of gas usage for one year.
Although the Defendant had been equipped with a general measuring instrument to measure the volume of gas used to drive the hotel boiler at the beginning, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the gas price calculated by using the general measuring instrument (a measuring instrument using the body of gas passed by H20mH20m from March 2003 to August 201, and from January 201 to February 2012 to February 201, the corrective measuring instrument installed separately from the general measuring instrument (a standard form for the body of gas flow, i.e., the temperature 0° and pressure 0m H20m converted into H20m).
[Grounds for recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3-1 through 7, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-2, the existence of agreement on the measurement of the correction measuring instrument of the whole pleadings, and whether the correction measuring instrument of the whole pleadings can be measured by the correction measuring instrument under the contract of this case, although the defendant did not agree with the plaintiff.