○○-gu ○○○○ ○○-ri ○ - ○○ - ○

○○○

Law Firm Handeok, Attorneys Han Han-han et al.

Seoul ○○-gu 00 Dong 000

OOdong OOOOO -00

Representative President Kim ○○

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

2. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have any liability for penalty for the amount of electricity used by the Plaintiff from October 17, 2005 to October 16, 2007 among the electricity supplied and used by the Defendant pursuant to the electricity supply contract concluded on May 7, 2004.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions and images of Gap evidence 2 through 8, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, 4, 5, 17, Eul evidence 18-1, 2, and 3, and the whole purport of oral proceedings.

(1) Conclusion of an electricity supply contract

On May 7, 2004, the Plaintiff, a company established for freezing warehouse business, entered into an electricity supply contract with the Defendant for the supply of electricity necessary for operating freezing warehouse business, and received electricity from the Defendant around that time.

( 2 ) 계기용 변성기의 내부 배선 조작 사실 발견 피고의 협력업체인 ◎◎◎◎◎가 2007. 10. 29. 원고의 전기설비에 대한 순회시험을 하던 중, 원고의 냉동창고 옥상 변전실에 설치된 계기용 변성기 ( 이하 ' 이 사건 계기용 변성기 ' 라 한다 ) 의 뚜껑 봉인이 훼손되고 최초 설치 시와는 달리 내부 배선 중 붉은 색 전선과 흰색 전선의 연결 위치가 서로 바뀌어지는 방식으로 임의로 조작되어 있는 것을 발견하였다. 위와 같이 내부 배선이 변경되면 원고의 실제 전기 사용량 중 3분의 1에 해당하는 사용량만이 이 사건 계기용 변성기에 계량된다 . ( 3 ) 전기공급약관 한편, 위 전력 공급계약의 전기공급약관 ( 이하 ' 이 사건 전기공급약관 ' 이라 한다 ) 제44조 제1항에는 ' 고객이 이 약관을 위배하여 요금의 일부나 전부가 정당하게 계산되지 않았을 경우 피고는 정당하게 계산되지 않은 금액의 3배를 한도로 위약금을 받는다 ' 고규정되어 있다 .

(4) Demand by the defendant for penalty, etc., a short warning, and the plaintiff's answer.

① Since the Defendant supplied electricity around May 2004, on the grounds that there was no special change in the Plaintiff’s volume of electricity used, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff operated the internal distribution line of the instant meters from the above time, and on November 16, 2007, the Plaintiff did not file a complaint with the competent authority pursuant to the provision of 279, 78, 346, value-added tax 27, 978, 836, penalty (two times of evasion charges), 559,576, 692, 11, 286, 86, and 860 won from the date of the first transmission to October 16, 2007, when the Plaintiff did not file a complaint with the competent authority by November 28, 2007.

1B With respect to the notification, us only listened to the defendant's explanation and notification without accurately recognizing the situation and phenomenon described in the notification, us requested postponement of the submission of the data until December 31, 2007 in the situation where there is no expert knowledge about electricity.

③ The payment period, including penalty, shall be November 27, 2007, from November 28, 2007 to the Plaintiff. < Amended by Act No. 8613, Nov. 28, 2007>

12.7. Change to July, 12. In the absence of penalty, etc. within the above period of time, or there is no objection (asumptive data and document attached to the alleged violation), the notification was given to the authorities immediately after the end of the period pursuant to Article 45 of the supply terms and conditions of electricity.

④ On December 5, 2007, the Plaintiff: (a) on December 5, 2007, it is difficult to find out how the technical staff, who are aware of the knowledge or principles of electricity in the size of the company, does not work for a single technical staff member; and (b) how this problem arises. As our name, there is no special proviso, even though the in-house staff member and the electrical construction company at the time of the execution of the building, there is no special proviso. The Defendant also was close to the fact that there was no such problem at the time of the inspection on the meter. However, even if us is responsible for the evasion charge, the Plaintiff asked us to reduce or exempt the penalty (Evidence A No. 5).

⑤ On October 17, 2005, considering the Plaintiff’s failure to discover the above operation at the time of the inspection on the Plaintiff’s factory, the Defendant deemed that 2/3 of the quantity of electricity used from October 17, 2005 to October 16, 2007 was not measured. On December 20, 207, the Plaintiff did not pay to the Plaintiff the charges of KRW 189,684,39,393, value-added tax 18,968,438, penalty (two times of evasion charges), 379,368,786, 7, 150, 150, and 150 won (the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the above amount to the Defendant) for the payment period of KRW 85,285,085,00,000,000 for the penalty for electricity used during the above period.

1. The plaintiff's second installment payment to the defendant on December 27, 2007 to the defendant on December 27, 2007 was requested by the prior wife so that the company's financial difficulties can be paid in 10 installments, and us's management negligence has some problems, but the defendant also did not conduct an accurate circuit inspection, and the plaintiff's notice was requested to permit it (Evidence A 7).

was made.

7) On December 28, 2007, the defendant notified the plaintiff on December 28, 2007 that "the defendant would immediately suspend the supply of electricity pursuant to Article 45 of the former Terms and Conditions of Supply (Evidence No. 8)" because it was finally determined in full consideration of the terms and conditions of the electricity supply of us and the plaintiff's position at the time of the first installment from January 4, 2008 to January 11, 2008, and "the first installment shall be changed from January 4, 2008 to January 11, 2008."

The Plaintiff paid the Defendant the sum of KRW 240 million out of the Defendant’s claim amount from January 2008 to April 2008.

2. Party’s assertion (1) Plaintiff;

Since May 204 when the Plaintiff started to be supplied with electricity from the Defendant, it delegated all of the electricity management duties to the Korea Electrical Safety Corporation by concluding a safety management agency contract with the Korea Electrical Safety Corporation. The Plaintiff’s employees did not have any professional manpower related to the electricity, and there was no difference in the Plaintiff’s arbitrary manipulation of the internal distribution line of the instant instrument transformation machine. Accordingly, there is no penalty charge under the premise of the Plaintiff’s operation of the vessel among the instant electrical usage obligations. (2) Defendant 2 did not:

Since the Plaintiff evaded electric utility charges by arbitrarily manipulating the internal distribution lines of the instant instrument in violation of the terms and conditions of the electricity supply in violation of the terms and conditions of the electricity supply in this case, the Plaintiff confirmed that the Plaintiff was liable to pay the penalty, and confirmed that the Plaintiff was liable to pay the unpaid charges and the penalty, and requested the extension of the period and amount of calculation of the omission charges and the liability to pay the penalty, and did not raise any objection to the omission charges and the obligation to pay the penalty itself. In fact, the Plaintiff ratified the obligation to pay the penalty in this case by doing so to the instant joint and several surety that is the representative director at the time.

3. Determination: (1) Even if the provision on the penalty under Article 44(1) of the former Terms and Conditions of Electricity of this case is legally incorporated into a contract in relation to the Plaintiff, such provision shall be strictly construed and applied for the benefit of the Plaintiff and its customers, including the Plaintiff. Furthermore, the Defendant bears the responsibility to prove its existence. (2) Accordingly, we examine whether the Plaintiff, in violation of the former Terms and Conditions of Electricity of this case, arbitrarily manipulates the internal distribution line of the instant instruments, thereby evading electric charges.

The following circumstances revealed by the statement in the evidence and evidence No. 16, namely, the change of the meter in this case, is located inside the transformation room of the freezing warehouse managed by the plaintiff. On October 29, 2007, the seal of the lids for the meter in this case was damaged and the location of the connections between red wires and white wires is changed one another. As above, if the internal distribution line is operated, only one third of the amount of electricity actually used by the plaintiff is measured, the economic benefits from the operation of the above distribution line is the plaintiff only, and there is no significant change in the amount of electricity used by the plaintiff as measured from May 2004, which started to supply the electricity to the plaintiff, it is true that the plaintiff arbitrarily notified the defendant of the charges for omission of the inside distribution of the instrument in this case, and it is not clear that the plaintiff paid the representative director in installments for the obligations of the plaintiff to the defendant on May 16, 2008.

However, in full view of the evidence Nos. 1 through 10, evidence Nos. 20, evidence Nos. 20, evidence Nos. 1 and 20, witness Nos. 1 and witness Nos. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the National Electrical Safety Corporation from April 23, 2004 to delegate the safety management duties of electric installations to the above Corporation. The Plaintiff’s employees did not have electricity-related professionals, and the Defendant did not. 205.

10. 17. 17. The plaintiff did not find the above operation at the time of the inspection on the plaintiff's factory on November 16, 2007, and as seen above, the defendant notified the plaintiff of his failure to pay the penalty, etc. or, if there is no objection, to take a short-term measure, etc. on November 27, 2007, and notified the plaintiff of his failure to pay the penalty, etc. on December 20, 2007 and December 28, 2007, if he did not pay the penalty, etc. on December 20, 2007 on two or three occasions, he notified the plaintiff of his failure to pay the short-term measure, etc. However, it is more desirable that the plaintiff paid the reduction rate, etc. and completed the instant case from the point of view that only the previous representative director would be exempted from the supply of the electricity to the plaintiff on June 18, 2008 on the ground that there is no change in the inside of the plaintiff's joint and several debt 15.

Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff arbitrarily operated the internal distribution line of the instant instrument with only the suspected circumstances as seen earlier, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(3) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have ratified the instant penalty in light of the details and content of the joint and several guarantee made by the former representative director of the Plaintiff by either notifying the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would pay the omission charges, etc. or paying some charges, and the amount of the said joint and several guarantee. Therefore, the Plaintiff did not incur the Defendant a penalty under the premise of the Plaintiff’s operation of the ship out of the instant electrical usage liability, and as long as the Defendant contests this, there is a benefit to seek confirmation of the non-existence of the instant penalty against the Defendant.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is legitimate and accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance is so accepted.

As the conclusion differs, it is unfair to accept the plaintiff's appeal and to confirm that there is no obligation to pay the penalty of this case after cancelling the first instance judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Park Jong-sung

Judges Kim Jae-sub