On June 2009, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff’s principal lawsuit 1) merely uses most of the instant building as a factory building for manufacturing and assembling, and part of the instant building as its subsidiary office is not in violation of the type of contract stipulated in the instant supply contract. 2) Even if the Plaintiff breached the instant supply contract, the Plaintiff’s D branch office runs across the instant building with the roads of 3 to 4 meters wide from the instant building, and regularly checks the electric measuring instruments installed in the instant building through the inspection source, and manages several measuring instruments by replacing them. The Defendant’s claim for the retroactive payment of the instant electricity charges for general use was in violation of the principle of trust and good faith, and ② the provision on penalty for breach of trust and good faith is invalid because the Defendant did not explain that the charge system differs depending on the penalty provision or the type of contract, and thus, the terms and conditions of the instant supply contract cannot be the content of the instant contract, which are contrary to the principle of trust and good faith, and thus unfairly imposes the obligation of compensation for damages on the Plaintiff or the customer who lost the fairness.

3) In addition, in light of the fact that the Defendant’s investigator could have easily known the use of the instant building, but did not raise any objection for 12 years, a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant pursuant to Article 532 of the Civil Act regarding the Plaintiff’s use of industrial power shall be deemed to have been concluded by the realization of intent. 4) Nevertheless, the Defendant sought payment of KRW 15,853,460 as penalty for breach of the terms and conditions of electricity supply from June 2009 to May 2014.