beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 10,880,050 against the Plaintiff as to the Defendant and its related amount from May 30, 2017 to August 28, 2019.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, except that the part of the judgment on the defendant's assertion of mutual aid (Article 2-B-2, 2-2, and 3) and the part on the lawsuit of the court of first instance (Article 2-3 (c)) that are written between the third and third sides of the judgment of the court of first instance, are the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Supplementary parts]
B. In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 9, 10, and 12 of the Electric Utility Deduction (A) as to the Defendant’s argument, the Plaintiff did not pay the aggregate of the electric utility rates of KRW 2,087,180 (i.e., KRW 1,591,950 on the second floor electricity rates of KRW 495,230 on February 12, 2016), and the Defendant paid KRW 505,70 on February 12, 2016, and thus, the amount of KRW 1,581,480 (i.e., KRW 2,087,180) shall be deducted.
(B) According to each of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 13 and 14, the Plaintiff did not pay 5,982,860 won (i.e., 5,228,690 won in the deep-water high-water high-water high-water high-water electric charges of KRW 754,170) imposed during the lease period of the instant real property (as the Plaintiff seeks, the above 5,982,860 won in the deep-water high-water high-water electric charges of KRW 5,228,690).
Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that, since the Plaintiff did not operate a child-care center in the night, it is unreasonable to deduct the above charges from the Plaintiff’s failure to be used by the Plaintiff. However, it is reasonable to bear the Plaintiff’s expenses while the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate for the purpose of saving electricity which is lower than the low time zone.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is rejected.
(3) The Defendant deducts the water supply and sewerage charge from the Defendant, shall use the instant real estate, and shall have the third floor on which the Plaintiff used it.