The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

1. Examining the contents of the terms and conditions of the electricity supply and the detailed rules applicable to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, the penalty under the said provision of the electricity supply can be deemed as having the nature of liquidated damages and penalty (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da112032, Apr. 11, 2013). In such a case, it is reasonable to deem that the penalty may be reduced based on the total amount of penalty pursuant to Article 398(2) of the Civil Act.

However, even if a reduction is made on the basis of the total amount of penalty, the amount equivalent to the evasion electrical charge (including the electricity fund and value added tax) out of the penalty is the amount that the customer has to have been paid as a matter of course by electric charges, and thus, it is not permissible to reduce the amount less than the evasion electrical charge, barring any special circumstance.

The court below ruled that the penalty of this case is excessive and reduced to 30%. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the nature of the penalty under the electricity supply terms and conditions or by violating

2. 피고의 상고이유에 관하여 원심은, 피고가 전기공급약관 별표 2의 ‘기타사업의 세분류’ 중 ‘⑪ 근로자직업능력개발법에 의한 직업능력개발훈련시설로서 실험 및 공작시설을 갖춘 기관’에 해당한다고 볼 수 없고, 피고가 이 사건 시설에서 같은 별표 2의 ‘제조업’ 중 ‘인쇄업, 인쇄관련 산업, 기록매체 복제업’을 영위하고 있다고 인정하기 어렵다고 판단하였다.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of the terms of supply.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party.