The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the contract power arising from unauthorized extension by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) should be calculated on the basis of the capacity of the secondary and secondary voltage equipment according to the instant contract, but that the capacity of the secondary and secondary voltage equipment exceeds that of the primary voltage equipment connected thereto, the partial capacity should be limited to the capacity of the primary voltage equipment.

B. Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of the terms and conditions of the electricity supply and the enforcement regulations.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. The lower court determined that, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, the penalty of this case is reasonable to have the nature of liquidated damages and penalty, on the premise that the penalty can be reduced unfairly in excessive cases, and on the grounds stated in its reasoning, the penalty to be borne by the Plaintiff should be KRW 308,073,190, which is the sum of the evaded charges and the penalty equivalent to the evaded charges from March 16, 2008 to September 30, 2012, the sum of the value-added tax on the evaded charges and the funds for the Electrical Industry Foundation, as the sum of the value-added tax on the evaded charges and the funds for the electric utility industry, and the amount of the evaded charges shall be KRW 1,350,121,670, and from October 1, 2012 to September 30, 2013.

B. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of facts beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the reduction of penalty

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.