손해배상(기)
1. Of the part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) that exceeds the following payment order.
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the statement in paragraph (1) of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, citing it by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Summary of the parties’ assertion
A. As the Plaintiff terminated the instant contract without any grounds for termination, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 9 of the instant contract, and the Defendant paid only KRW 24,285,420 out of the total amount of gas proceeds supplied by the Plaintiff from January 3, 2014 to February 27, 2014, as the Defendant paid only KRW 46,831,71, which was paid from the Plaintiff to February 27, 2014. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the remainder of the unpaid gas
B. Even if the Plaintiff’s Morse at the time of the instant contract was KRW 92, the Plaintiff violated the supply price agreement stipulated in the instant contract by claiming the Defendant for gas prices calculated by applying the Morse diagnosis of KRW 155.6 from around August 201 to December 7, 201, KRW 210, KRW 186 from around January 201 to April 7, 201, and KRW 156 from around January 201 to December 2011, and KRW 155.6 from around 2012 to around 2014. The determination of the contract term until the Defendant’s existence is null and void not only as a juristic act (Article 103 of the Civil Act) contrary to good morals and other social order, but also as an unfair juristic act (Article 104 of the Civil Act) in accordance with Article 9 subparag. 1 and 6 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (hereinafter “Terms and Conditions”).
However, the plaintiff refused to adjust the unit price and the contract period of the supply to the plaintiff on its ground. The above actions of the plaintiff violate commercial practice, and trust between the plaintiff and the defendant was broken due to unilateral pricing of the plaintiff.
I would like to say.
Therefore, the Defendant’s rescission of the instant contract is lawful.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and the defendant, as a counterclaim, exceeded the conclusion price agreed upon to the plaintiff.