2. Expenses for filing an appeal, and those for filing an application for the return of provisional payments.

2. Determination as to the cause of the action;

3. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court regarding the defendant's defense is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition or dismissal as follows:

Article 44 of the Terms and Conditions amended on March 28, 2006 and the attached Table / [4] of the Terms and Conditions as amended on August 24, 2010 were changed to Article 39 and [Attachment 3] of the Terms and Conditions as amended on August 24, 2010, but there is no difference in the content of the provision (hereinafter referred to as “instant provision”).

On January 22, 2010, the plaintiff supplied electricity from the Korea Electric Power Corporation and made the facility users use electricity.

The following shall be added to the 6th page 10:

A person shall be appointed.

A. First primary defense: The defendant's assertion 1) If the meaning of the provision of this case is viewed as "the plaintiff may continue to impose electric facilities usage fees according to the defendant's electric usage quantity regardless of whether prior investment costs was recovered in the power supply facilities that he installed," as alleged by the plaintiff, it shall be governed by the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (hereinafter "Standard Contracts Regulation Act").

Article 6(1) of the Act is null and void as it falls under “a clause unreasonably unfavorable to customers.”

In order to effectively continue the instant provision, the purport of the instant provision should be modified to the effect that “the Plaintiff may impose electric facilities usage fees on the Defendant until the amount of prior investment costs is recovered in the power supply facilities installed by the Plaintiff.”

Ultimately, the instant provision should be construed as “if the Plaintiff collects all prior investment costs for power supply facilities, no more would charge electric facilities usage charges.” The Plaintiff shall be charged with electric facilities usage fees paid from facilities users including the Defendant by 2010.