[2] Whether a new customer who did not change the name of the consumers of electricity by the time stipulated in the terms and conditions of the Korea Electric Power Corporation is obligated to choose either the succession of the former customer's unpaid electric rates or the standard construction cost burden under the terms and conditions of the Korea Electric Power Corporation (negative)

[2] It is difficult to permit the new customer who delayed the application for change of the name of the electricity user by the time stipulated in the terms and conditions of the electricity supply of the Korea Electric Power Corporation to choose either the succession of the former customer's unpaid electricity rates or the payment of the standard construction cost stipulated in the terms and conditions of the electricity supply of the Korea Electric Power Corporation, which is excessively unfavorable to the customer, and it does not coincide with the purpose of allowing the Korea Electric Power Corporation and other public enterprises to supply the electricity

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with the whole purport of Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, 3-2, and Eul evidence 2, and there are no other objections.

(a)The office 10th floor of reinforced concrete structure slive roof slive roof (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case") on the 25th fiveth floor of Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu newspaper was owned by Mama Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "non-party company"). As a result of the compulsory auction procedure for the building of this case under Seoul District Court 98 Mata3943, September 28, 1999, the plaintiff was awarded a successful bid for the building of this case.

B. Upon delivery of the instant building on October 1, 1999, the Plaintiff used the electricity supplied to the building of this case from the non-party company to the Plaintiff without changing the name of the electricity user of the building of this case from the non-party company to the Plaintiff, and on October 25, 1999, entered the non-party company from the Defendant to the electricity user as the non-party company (the period of use is from September 15, 1999 to October 14, 199). Upon receipt of the electric charge claim, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to change the name of the electricity user of the building of this case from the non-party company to the Plaintiff on October 28, 1999.

C.However, in order to change the name of the electricity user of the building of this case to the plaintiff under the terms and conditions of the electricity supply, the defendant did not first pay the unpaid electricity charges (the amount including television receiving fees; hereinafter referred to as "electric utility charges") 18,540,91 (the amount including television receiving fees) by the non-party company, the former owner of the building of this case, from July 15, 1999 to August 14, 199, plus KRW 7,68,390 + KRW 8,337,630 from August 15, 199 to September 14, 199 + KRW 2,514,351 + from September 15, 199 to September 14, 1999.

D. On November 5, 199, the Plaintiff paid the electricity charge of 4,506,810 won on October 1999 (including the amount including the electricity charge of KRW 2,514,351 from September 15, 1999 to September 30, 199) and then, upon presenting the receipt to the Defendant, applied again for changing the name of the electricity user of the instant building from the non-party to the Plaintiff. On November 11, 1999, the Defendant changed the name of the electricity user of the instant building from the non-party to the Plaintiff.

E.After that, the defendant confirmed that the non-party company failed to pay the unpaid electricity charges of August 199 and 199, 99, 16,026,560 won in arrears, and notified the plaintiff that he will suspend the supply of electricity to the building of this case if the non-party company failed to pay the unpaid electricity charges of this case by December 5, 199.

F. On November 26, 199, the Plaintiff expressed that the demand of the Defendant for the payment of unpaid electricity charges by content-certified mail was unjustifiable, but the Defendant did not change its position. On November 30, 1999, the Plaintiff paid the unpaid electricity charges of KRW 16,026,560 to the non-party company around August 30, 199 and September 16, 199 to continuously supply electricity from the Defendant.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

(a) Whether the unpaid electric utility charge is succeeded (the occurrence of a duty to return unjust enrichment);

(1) Relevant provisions

(A) Article 17(1) of the Electric Utility Act (amended by Act No. 5830, Feb. 8, 1999) provides that a general electricity business operator, such as the defendant, shall prepare terms and conditions of “charges and other terms and conditions of supply” and obtain approval from the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy, and also requires such approval. Article 19 of the same Act provides that a general electricity business operator shall supply electricity in accordance with such authorized terms and conditions of supply, and a person who intends to receive electricity from a general electricity business operator or who uses supplied electricity shall comply with such terms and conditions of supply.

(b)On the other hand, according to the statement in Eul evidence 2, Article 12 of the former terms and conditions of supply authorized by the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Electric Utility Act, if the customer wishes to change through sale and purchase, etc. and the customer wishes to settle the charges by user following the change of name, the defendant may claim in writing the amount of the electricity charges of the new and old customer on the basis of the change date. However, it is recognized that the expression of intent in name is applied in writing to the defendant prior to the end of the use of the former customer, and that if the new customer continues to use electricity without such written application, it shall be deemed that

(2) According to the facts, the Plaintiff applied for the change of the name of the electricity user of the building of this case from October 1, 1999 to the Plaintiff without changing the name of the electricity user of the building of this case from the non-party company to the Plaintiff, and only October 28, 1999, in writing, the Defendant applied for the change of the name of the electricity user of the building of this case from the non-party company to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff refused the change of the name of the Defendant and expressed his intention to suspend the supply of the above unpaid electricity rate of KRW 18,540,911 on two occasions, which the non-party company did not pay the unpaid electricity rate of KRW 18,540,91. The above unpaid electricity rate of KRW 19,91 was paid by the non-party company to the public (see Article 17 (1) of the Electric Utility Act). As seen in the above paragraph (1) of the same Article, the Defendant's obligation to pay the new electricity rate of KRW 12 to the Defendant's new electricity supply terms and new terms are not effective.

However, in the case of this case, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff consented to Article 12 of the above terms and conditions of the electricity supply, and rather, according to the basic facts, the plaintiff pointed out the illegality of Article 12 of the above terms and conditions of the electricity supply and demanded the defendant to change the name of the consumers of electricity instead of on condition of the succession to unpaid electricity rates. Thus, Article 12 of the above terms and conditions of the electricity supply does not have any effect on the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff did not succeed to the duty of payment of unpaid electricity rates of

B. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant received the unpaid electricity fee of KRW 18,540,91 from the plaintiff and received the payment of KRW 18,540,911 from the non-party company without any legal cause, and took profits equivalent to KRW 18,540,911, and suffered damages equivalent to the same amount from the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant must refund the above unjust enrichment of KRW 18,540,911 to the plaintiff and damages for delay.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant's assertion

The defendant, while using the electricity supplied to the building of this case as it is, did not succeed to the duty to pay KRW 18,540,91, which is unpaid by the non-party company, has a duty to enter into a new electricity use contract with the defendant pursuant to Articles 83 and 84(1) of the former Terms and Conditions of Electricity and to pay KRW 11,880,91 in the standard construction cost to the defendant. The plaintiff's right to return unjust enrichment of KRW 18,540,911 against the defendant and the defendant's right to return unjust enrichment of KRW 11,880,911 against the plaintiff to the extent equal, set off against the defendant's claim for construction cost of KRW 11,911 against the plaintiff.

(b) Markets:

Article 83 of the former Terms and Conditions of Electricity supply provides that where a customer newly uses electricity or increases contract power, or changes supply facilities at the customer’s wishes, construction expenses for power distribution lines shall be borne by the customer. Article 84(1) provides that where a customer newly uses electricity or increases contract power and supplies electricity to general supply facilities, an amount calculated pursuant to Article 93 (hereinafter “standard construction cost”) regardless of the existence of construction or details of construction works shall be determined as a customer’s burden, although the above provision is deemed to apply to cases where a change occurs in the existing electricity use contract with the defendant, such as entering into a new electricity use contract or increase contract power, the above provision does not necessarily apply to cases where a change in the existing electricity use contract with the defendant, and only the name of the consumer of the building of this case changes to the name of the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been applied to the defendant’s new provision of electricity under the premise that the new provision of electricity can not be seen to have been applied to the defendant’s new provision of electricity supply under the premise that the new provision of electricity can not be seen to the new provision of electricity supply.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 18,540,91 won with 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the day following the day on which the copy of the complaint of this case was delivered to the plaintiff, to the day of March 23, 2000, and 25% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of the decision of this case, as the plaintiff is obligated to pay damages for delay at each rate of 18,540,91 won and the damages for delay from March 23, 200, which is the day of the decision of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified,

Judges Man-soon (Presiding Judge)