전기요금
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the selective and conjunctive claims added by this court are all dismissed.
2. Costs of appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of this case citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance sees this case as follows: (a) the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of this case sees this case as follows; (b) the 11th "Miro" as "Miro"; and (c) the 11th "Miro" as "Miro" as "Miro"; and (d) the Defendant’s assertion of selective or conjunctive assertion in the trial as follows
2. Additional determination
A. 1) The summary of the Plaintiff’s selective assertion is that the Defendant, in violation of the terms and conditions of this case, was liable to pay the difference between the charge for industrial power re-calculated with the charge for agricultural power and the charge for delay calculated with the charge for agricultural power pursuant to Article 44 of the above terms and conditions, and the charge for delay is liable to pay 171,229,871 won and the charge for delay. 2) The Plaintiff seeking payment of the charge for penalty equivalent to the difference between the charge for agricultural and industrial power pursuant to Article 44 of the above terms and conditions, is liable to prove that the Defendant violated the above terms and conditions and used the electricity supplied from the Plaintiff for industrial purposes other than agricultural purposes, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant used the electricity supplied from the Plaintiff for the above terms and conditions in violation of subparagraph 7, 8-1, 8-2, 9, 10-2, 11, 12-1, 12-4, 13, 12-2, 18, and 2-1.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
① Article 59 of the Terms and Conditions of this case