beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company that produces and sells high-efficiency facilities, such as ESD lighting, instead of an energy user, and redeems the cost of the installation in installments with energy saving over a long-term period. The Defendant is a business entity that operates and manages a parking lot for A located in Busan Shipping Daegu (hereinafter “instant building”). In the event that there is no fund to change old facilities with low efficiency due to large energy consumption into high-efficiency facilities such as ESD lighting, the Plaintiff is a business entity that produces and sells high-efficiency facilities, such as ES lighting, instead of an energy user, and pays the cost of the installation in installments with energy saving over a long-term period.
B. On March 30, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded an energy-saving performance allocation agreement with the purport that the Plaintiff shall replace lighting of the instant building with PED from April 6, 2011 to May 11, 201, and that the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff a performance-based share of KRW 455,369,618, each month from July 30, 2011 to May 30, 201 (hereinafter “instant agreement”). In fact, the Plaintiff’s Busan/Seoul branch office was in charge of entering into and implementing the instant agreement.
C. However, the Plaintiff entered into a construction project to replace the remainder of 1/2 except for C Hospital in the instant building, and the Defendant paid only KRW 3,859,064 per month, 1/2 of the performance distribution amount agreed to be paid to the Plaintiff each month from July 30, 201, and the Plaintiff’s Busan/Seoul branch office paid KRW 3,859,065 per month, from July 30, 201 to November 30, 2013 (29th), out of the performance distribution amount under the instant contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,859,065 (=7,718,129-3,859,064) for the remainder of the performance distribution amount that the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff.
On October 17, 2014, the Plaintiff violated the instant contract by paying only half of the monthly repayment of KRW 7,718,129 from December 30, 2013 (30 tea) to KRW 3,859,064.