In a case where the electricity users Gap et al. sought the return of the portion exceeding the basic fees from among the electricity charges imposed on the premise of a progressive system against the Korea Electric Power Corporation on the grounds that the part of the standardized contract on the water supply terms and conditions of the electricity users set forth a progressive system on the water supply under Article 6 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act was null and void, the case holding that the Korea Electric Power Corporation has a duty to refund Gap et al. the difference equivalent to the basic fees and the electricity charges calculated on the basis of the basic

In a case where the electricity users Gap et al. sought the return of the portion exceeding basic fees from among the electricity charges imposed on the premise that the electricity rates are null and void pursuant to Article 6 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, which are imposed on the premise that the electricity rates exceed the basic fees against the Korea Electric Power Corporation, it is reasonable to view that the electricity users cannot negotiate the contents of the terms and conditions at all unless there are reasonable grounds for the application of an excessive sacrifice to a specific group or a different rate system from other groups in a specific group, which would result in an unfair disadvantage against the legitimate interests of the electricity users and reasonable expectations of the terms and conditions, and the introduction of the progressive system is more effective than those of the electricity users using general electricity, educational power, and industrial power, and the introduction of the progressive system is deemed to have a big effect on preventing the use of the electricity rates at the time of using the 10-hour basic electricity rates in violation of Article 601 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, and thus, it is difficult to find reasonable and reasonable grounds for the reduction of the amount of the electricity rates at the 10-hour basic electricity rates in accordance with the principle.

Article 2 Subparag. 1, Article 6(1) and (2)1 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions; Articles 4, 7, 14, and 16 of the Electric Utility Act; Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Electric Utility Act; Article 4 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions; Article 741 of the Civil Act

See Attached List of Plaintiffs (Law Firm Inhan River, Attorneys Kim Sang-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Electric Power Corporation (Law Firm Government Corporation, Attorneys Kim Dong-dong, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

May 16, 2017

1. All of the claims for nullification of the terms and conditions provisions of the instant lawsuit are dismissed.

2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiffs listed in the “Plaintiff” column in the calculation table of the amount of unjust enrichment by Plaintiff 2, 5% per annum from October 8, 2016 to June 27, 2017, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. The plaintiffs' remaining claims in the calculation table of the amount of unjust enrichment by plaintiff 2 are dismissed.

4. One-fourth of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

1. It is confirmed that the part of the terms and conditions as shown in annex 3 is null and void;

2. The defendant paid to the plaintiffs in the calculation table of the amount of unjust enrichment by the plaintiff in attached Form 2 "the sum of the plaintiff's unjust enrichment by the plaintiff" in the same table to the plaintiffs, 15% interest per annum from the day following the day on which a copy of the complaint of this case concerning each of the above money is served to the day of complete payment (the part of the plaintiffs is changed to the statement of the application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim as of May 11, 2017, and the defendant did not give up with his consent. The defendant also did not withdraw the portion of the claim for unjust enrichment in attached Form 2. The plaintiffs not stated in the "Plaintiff" column from among the plaintiffs in the calculation table of the amount of unjust enrichment by the plaintiff in attached Form 2.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company established under the Korea Electric Power Corporation Act for the purposes of the development, generation, transmission, transformation, distribution, and other related businesses of electric resources, and is engaged in the electric sales business. The Plaintiffs are the consumers of electricity supplied with electricity from the Defendant under the electricity supply contract concluded with the Defendant.

B. Article 7 of the Electric Utility Act provides that an operator of the electric utility business who intends to operate the electric sales business shall obtain a license from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy. The Defendant is running the electric sales business in an exclusive position with a license for the electric sales business only by day.

C. Under Article 16(1) of the Electric Utility Act, the Defendant shall prepare terms and conditions of electric charges and other supply terms and conditions and obtain authorization from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, and Article 16(2) of the same Act shall be subject to deliberation by the Electrical Affairs Commission when the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy intends

D. When entering into a supply contract with consumers of electricity, the Defendant applied the said terms and conditions as authorized by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy. The Defendant applied the said terms and conditions to the electricity supply terms and conditions applied from August 6, 2012 to January 13, 2013 (hereinafter “Standard terms and conditions”), the electricity supply terms and conditions applied from January 14, 2013 to November 20, 2013 (hereinafter “Standard Terms and Conditions”) and the electricity supply terms and conditions applied from November 21, 2013 to November 30, 2016 (hereinafter “Standard Terms and Conditions 3”) to the electricity supply terms and conditions applied from November 21, 2013 to the electricity supply terms and conditions (hereinafter “Standard Terms and Conditions 3”) as shown in attached Table 1, and the Plaintiffs paid each of the said charges to the Plaintiffs used on August 6, 2012 to January 13, 2013.

E. The statutes relevant to the instant case are as listed in the attached Table 4-related statutes.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the part of the instant lawsuit seeking nullification of the provision of the terms and conditions is legitimate

In light of the legal status of the plaintiffs, it is recognized that it is the most effective and appropriate means to determine the legal status of the plaintiffs as a confirmation judgment to eliminate such apprehensions and risks when they are unstable and dangerous. Thus, despite the fact that a lawsuit seeking performance can be brought, it is not a final solution of the dispute, and thus there is no benefit of confirmation (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239, Mar. 9, 2006, etc.).

With respect to this case, the Plaintiffs sought the confirmation of invalidity of the first terms and conditions at the same time on the premise that the first terms and conditions are null and void. With respect to the second and third terms and conditions, the Plaintiffs seek the confirmation of invalidity of the second and third terms and conditions without filing a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment on the premise that the said terms and conditions are null and void. The Plaintiffs seek a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment on the premise that the first terms and conditions are null and void, which is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate concerns and risks arising out of the legal status premised on the premise that the first terms and conditions are null and void. As such, the Plaintiff’s separate lawsuit for confirmation of invalidity of the first terms and conditions is not a final settlement method in dispute, and there is no benefit in confirmation. In the case of the second and third terms and conditions, there is no evidence to support the special circumstances, such as that the second and third terms and conditions cannot file a lawsuit for the confirmation of invalidity of unjust enrichment on the premise that the second and third terms

Therefore, the part of the claim for nullification of the terms and conditions of the lawsuit in this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

3. Determination on the claim for return of unjust enrichment

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

The portion of the terms and conditions of Article 1 which provides the progressive electricity for housing use is null and void pursuant to Article 6 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (hereinafter “Standard Terms and Conditions Regulation Act”), and thus, the portion exceeding the basic fees shall be refunded to the Plaintiffs, on the premise of the progressiveness of the first terms and conditions.

A) The Defendant’s use of the electricity rate table based on the excessive progressive rate of up to seven stages and 32.13 times in the electricity for residential purpose, compelling the Plaintiffs to pay electricity rates that are punitively increased.

B) The progressive rate is applied only to the electricity charges for residential use, and the fixed rate is applied to the electricity charges for other purposes than for residential use, but there is no justifiable reason to treat these discriminatory rates.

C) Only the user of the electric power for residential use (123.69 won/kWh) pays the total cost of the electric utility charge at least the unit cost of the electric utility (113.94 won/km) at the level of the total cost of the electric utility charge.

D) The Defendant, out of the total volume of electric power sales, has been 14% of the sales volume of the total volume of the electric power, but the sales volume of the total volume of the electric power sales reaches 17% of the sales volume of the total volume of the electric power for residential use, thereby gaining excessive

E) The Plaintiffs are forced to force the consumption of electricity as a result of the application of the progressive rate to the electricity for residential use.

2) The defendant's assertion

Article 1 of the Terms and Conditions Regulation Act does not apply to the grounds for invalidation under Article 6 of the Terms and Conditions Regulation Act for the following reasons. Therefore, the claim for return of unjust enrichment by the plaintiffs on the premise that the first terms and conditions are null and void shall not

A) The Defendant provides detailed guidance on the unit price table, etc. through the written request and customer guide data to the Plaintiffs, and specifically explain the method of calculating and paying electric charges at the Defendant’s cyber branch’s Internet cyber point, and is publicly announced through newspapers, etc. when the terms and conditions of the electric supply are amended.

B) Only in the case of the application of the 4-level progressive performance rate corresponding to the 350kWh of the terms and conditions, the general cost is paid at a level. Accordingly, the user ratio belonging to the 3-stage accumulated sections as of 2013 equal to 70% as of the year 2013. Therefore, the terms and conditions of the 1st contract are not unfairly disadvantageous to the Plaintiffs.

C) Unlike industrial and general electricity, it is not reasonable to apply the differential rate system to the housing-use electricity, or to apply the progressive rate system to the industrial and general electricity because the failure to adopt the selective rate system only to the housing-use electricity is due to the fact that the electricity users using the housing have no electric meters capable of measuring the amount of electricity used during the time period. In the case of the housing-use type, while in the case of the industrial and general electricity, it is not reasonable to apply the progressive rate system to the industrial and general electricity because the form of use is different.

D) Since the Defendant supplied electricity not only for general use, industrial, and educational purposes, but also for the electricity for housing used by the Plaintiffs, the Defendant does not play a role in compensating for losses arising from the electricity charges for other purposes than for residential purposes.

E) Article 4 of the Electric Utility Act, which provides that an operator of the electric utility business shall prepare a scheme to protect the interests of the consumers of electricity, is a declared provision, so it cannot be concluded that the terms and conditions of the first agreement are null and void on this basis. Since the progressive system and the progressive rate with respect to the electricity rates may vary among countries, it cannot be deemed null and void solely on the ground that the progressive rate is higher than that of other countries. In fact, in comparison with the United States or Japan, the progressive rate under the first agreement is lower

(b) Whether the first clause is null and void;

1) Relevant legal principles

A) Legal nature of the terms of power supply

In order to operate the electricity business, which is a public service business that supplies electricity essential to a large number of general consumers and to protect the interests of users, the Electric Utility Act requires strict procedures on the basis that the parties to a contract for supply with a general electricity service supplier and a general consumer individually agree on the terms and conditions of the contract and comply with the exclusive supply regulations, in particular, a fair and reasonable determination of public utility charges. The terms and conditions of the electricity supply have the nature of the terms and conditions of the general contract that apply to all the electricity supply contracts between the general electricity service supplier and its supply area and its current and future unspecified consumers (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu2792, Apr. 25, 1989; 98Da57099, Apr. 12, 2002).

B) Criteria for determining invalidation under Article 6 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions

Article 6(1) and (2)1 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions to be null and void on the ground that the standardized contract clause is unreasonably unfavorable to a customer under Article 6(1) and (2)1 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions. In order to be deemed null and void on the ground that the standardized contract clause is somewhat unfavorable to the customer, it is insufficient to say that the standardized contract clause was somewhat unfavorable to the customer. It is recognized that the standardized contract maker abused his trade position to make and use the standardized contract clause contrary to equity against the legitimate interests and reasonable expectations of the other party to the contract, thereby impairing the sound trade order. As such, whether the standardized contract clause constitutes “unfairly unfavorable to the customer” as a ground for invalidation of the standardized contract should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the content and probability of disadvantage that may arise to the customer under the standardized contract clause, impact on the transaction process between the parties, and regulations on related Acts and subordinate statutes (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Da23899, Dec. 24, 1991; 213Da

2) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances, Gap's evidence, Gap's evidence 7, 8, 9, 20, 22, 45, 50, 52, 59, 60, and Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings, it is reasonable to view that the bottom part of the monthly electrical fee table of the attached Form No. 1, which provides for a progressive system concerning the charge for housing use among the terms and conditions of the contract No. 1, is null and void as a standardized contract in violation of the principle of trust and good faith pursuant to Article 6 of the Terms and Conditions Regulation Act.

A) The foregoing is a public good that is essential for individual citizens to lead a basic life, and that needs to be used for goods, industries, agriculture, education, and general use. On the other hand, the supply of electricity is inevitably required in the whole area of society as well as personal domains, whereas the supply of electricity is bound to be limited due to the massive volume of production facilities, and the limit of the supply of raw materials. Therefore, the appropriate distribution of electricity and the diverse composition of the electricity fee system for this purpose is recognized.

On the other hand, as seen earlier, the Defendant’s exclusive possession of the electric sales business, and the Defendant and the consumers of electricity are prohibited from negotiating individual terms and conditions of the contract, and solely enter into a power supply contract in accordance with the terms and conditions authorized by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, and if not accepting the terms and conditions of the contract, the supply terms and conditions prepared by the Defendant have the effect on consumers of electricity.

Therefore, even if the electricity charge system needs to be diverse structure for the appropriate supply of electricity as public goods, and accordingly, it can be seen that the electricity charge system for the distribution of electricity would be different, if the structure of the electricity charge system for the distribution of electricity loses equity by demanding excessive sacrifice to a specific group, or there is no reasonable ground to apply the different fare system from other groups in a specific group, it is reasonable to view that the consumers of electricity could not negotiate the contents of the terms and conditions at all at all, as seen earlier, as a result, to give unfair disadvantages to the consumers against the legitimate interests and reasonable expectations of the consumers.

B) The monthly electricity rate table of the terms and conditions of the first agreement refers to the minimum rate of less than 10km in the case of electric power for residential use. When using more than 100km in excess of 100km, the basic rate is increased every time when the amount of usage increases in excess of 100km, and the rate of a total of six stages, which also increases in the amount of electric power for kW. In addition, if the base rate for the section below 100km is based on low voltage power, the basic rate of the section above 100km in excess of 50km in the area above 390km, which is the highest rate of the highest rate of 390km, is 12,350 won, and the amount of electric power per kWh is 100km in the area below 57.90km in the area below 50km in the area below 67.30 kWh in the area above 67.20km in the area above the monthly electric power volume exceeding 100km in excess.0 k.

On the other hand, with the exception of the house electric power, the remaining general-use electric power, educational electric power, industrial electric power, agricultural-use electric power, street lamps, etc., the dynamics system such as house electric power is not applied. In the case of general-use electric power, educational electric power, and industrial power, the amount of electric power charges is high if the basic fee is low after setting different electric power rates for ordinary-use electric power, educational power, and industrial power, or at the same time, the amount of electric power is set at a low rate, and the basic fee is set at a low rate, and the basic fee is set at a low rate, and the basic fee is set at a fixed rate. The basic fee is imposed on agricultural-use electric power and street lamps with fixed amount of electric power.

C) Examining the history of the above-mentioned type of progressive electricity consumption system, it appears that the progressive stage of three stages was introduced according to the first petroleum wave, which was around December 1974, and the progressive stage and progressive rate have been modified according to the economic conditions since the second petroleum chain was extended to 12 times as of July 1979, and the progressive rate was 19.7 times as of the second petroleum chain. According to the aforementioned developments and the purport of the introduction of the progressive system posted on the Defendant’s Internet homepage, it appears that the progressive rate of electricity consumption for housing is the primary purpose of inducing the saving of electricity consumption for housing. On the other hand, Korea’s industrial, industrial, public, and commercial power consumption rate was relatively lower than 30:30:30,000 in OECD countries, while Japan’s average domestic and commercial consumption rate was relatively lower than 52%, 30% in Japan’s average domestic and commercial consumption rate per head, 52% in comparison and 55% in Japan’s domestic and commercial consumption rate per head.

D) In light of the above circumstances, it can be presumed that the monthly electric rate table of the first terms and conditions introduced a progressive system only for residential power, and did not introduce the remaining general power, educational power, and industrial power only for industrial purposes, thereby positively suppressing only the use of residential power (the defendant asserts that the average of the OECD countries is higher than that of the Korean industrial power consumption has been activated compared with the OECD countries. However, the defendant does not submit specific evidence to support this, and it cannot be explained differently that the domestic electric power belongs to a remarkably low rate compared to the public and commercial power). Accordingly, the consumers using the residential power can be viewed as applying a progressive system that prevents the use of electric power differently compared to the consumers using the general electricity, educational power, industrial power, etc., and that the introduction of a progressive system would be reasonable to prove that the reason and the effect of differential treatment of different kinds of electric power, compared to that of different times and by different kinds of electric power used for other purposes.

In order to do so, this court did not answer to the defendant even though it asked the defendant to explain about the reason for introducing a progressive system that restricts the use of electricity only to the users of the electricity for housing, the reason for the recent reorganization of the progressive system, etc. Furthermore, it is difficult to find a reasonable ground for recognizing the necessity of suppressing the use of electricity by introducing a progressive system only with respect to the power for housing use. Furthermore, there is no question about how the whole power saving is efficiently made by suppressing the use through a progressive system in relation to the power for housing that the defendant sells as of 2012.

E) The Defendant asserts to the effect that since 70% or more of the consumers of housing use pay the general cost below the general cost, the terms and conditions of the first contract do not unfairly disadvantage the Plaintiffs from an economic point of view.

However, first, Article 16 of the Electric Utility Act, Article 7(1)1 and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 8(1) of the Notice on Standards for the Detailed Permission for Electricity Generation Business under Article 7(1)1 and (2) of the same Act, standards for calculating electricity charges, permissible error in the volume of electricity, and electric power system operation business, provide that “electric charges shall, in principle, be determined at a level that compensates the general cost required for electricity supply, but they may implement an incentive regulation method to enhance the efficiency in the management of the electricity supplier.” Article 8(2) provides that “The general cost shall be an amount calculated by adding the appropriate investment fee to the appropriate cost required for the supply of electricity under good faith and efficient management.” Articles 15 through 17 provide that “reasonable investment fee” shall be calculated by multiplying the “fareer”, which refers to the net operating asset, by the rate of equity capital investment fee and the weighted average rate of other capital investment remuneration. Therefore, since the general cost is unreasonably less than the profits of the Plaintiffs, it cannot be determined that it is unreasonable.

Second, the Defendant asserts that the overall cost of power for each use of the year 2012 through 2013 (hereinafter “the unit cost”) and the unit cost of sales are as listed below. However, even though this Court ordered the Defendant to submit data on whether the unit cost calculated as listed below is calculated appropriately, it is not submitted at all. Therefore, it cannot be confirmed that the unit cost calculated by the Defendant is appropriate.

A total of KRW 143.64 8.64 8.7 12.3 201, 201, 143.64 12.70 127.02 121.04 92.92 12.12.94 12.12.98 12.12.98 12.6 96.7 8.3 96.4 8.8 12.8 97. 96. 12. 96. 8. 96. 8. 12. 8. 96. 98 8. 12. 97 1. 96. 98 8. 4. 12. 98 8. 94 8. 196. 197 1. 194 7. 194 7. 10. 194

Furthermore, according to the audit report prepared around May 2013 by the Board of Audit and Inspection in consultation with the Minister of Strategy and Finance, even if the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy must consult with the Minister of Strategy and Finance in order to obtain approval from the Minister of Strategy and Finance pursuant to the Electric Utility Act, the Defendant’s calculation of the total cost per year and submit it to the Government, and the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy shall calculate the total cost and obtain approval from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy pursuant to the Act on the Price Stabilization, it can be recognized that the total cost was excessive for about KRW 6,54.9 billion due to the excessive calculation of the total cost base, which is its constituent element. In light of this, it is difficult to view that the above regulation on the general cost is difficult to guarantee the appropriateness of the total cost, and it is difficult to further conclude that the Defendant merely stated the above figure without submitting any supporting material, and that the Plaintiffs’ payment of the price as the consumers of electricity is appropriate.

Third, the method of calculating the sales unit price of the housing is calculated by dividing the total sales revenue of the housing into the sales volume of the power for the purpose of use, and the sales unit price for each short section is also calculated by dividing the sales revenue of each short section into the sales volume of the short-term section. However, under the circumstances where the short-term system is established, the method of calculating the sales unit price as above is increased or decreased by how much users of the housing use. As seen earlier, under the circumstance that the short-term system has been established as to the power for the purpose of use of the housing, it is likely that the conclusion that the Defendant would not disadvantage the users of the electricity solely on the ground that the use of the short-term system is being used as a sales unit compared to the estimated sales unit price of the housing unit calculated by the Defendant, is likely to cause and result.

Fourth, even if it is alleged by the Defendant, the remaining 30% of the users of the entire residential power are supplied with electricity below the category cost, which exceeds the category cost, may still be paid an excessive electricity fee due to the short-term system established in the residential power, and the conclusion that the consumers of the remaining 30% of the users of the electricity are not unreasonable to pay the excessive electricity fee due to the short-term system solely on the ground that the consumers of the electricity of 70% are supplied with electricity below the total cost.

F) The Defendant asserts to the effect that it would help alleviate the cost of electricity for low-income households under the terms and conditions. However, the unit price for a single-income household with less than five times the minimum cost of electricity as of 2013 is at least 11.1/kWh, and the unit price for a single-income household with less than five times the minimum cost of electricity, which is at least five times the minimum cost of electricity, is at least 165.7/kWh, and the unit price for a low-income household with more than five times the minimum cost of electricity, which is at least five times the average cost of electricity, is at least 241.5 /kWh, and the average cost of a household with less than five times the minimum cost of electricity, which is at least five times the minimum cost of electricity, is at least 121.4/kWh, and the average cost of electricity for a low-income household with less than two times the minimum cost of electricity, which is at least 20% of the minimum cost of electricity.

G) If one of the reasons for the operation of the progressive system is the concern about the power failure of the summer or winter iron, it would be possible to restrain the use of the short-term electric power at the time when the power is concentrated, as if it were operated by the general electricity, educational power, and industrial power, it would be difficult to find the reasons for applying the short-term electric power only to the housing power.

On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that the fare system applicable to the general electricity, education electricity, and industrial electricity cannot be applied to the housing fee, since there is no electric meters to measure the quantity of electricity used at the time of the house. However, in the case of the seasonal fee, it is not always necessary to measure the quantity of electricity used at the time of time, so it seems that there is no restriction in applying the seasonal fare system to the housing rent system, even if it is necessary, it is 38 years already established, and even if 10 years have passed yet, it is difficult to view that it is reasonable to not apply the time zone or the seasonal electricity rate system to the housing rent, on the ground that the electric power system was not yet installed even after the lapse of 10 years.

H) The Defendant asserts that the system that imposes excess use charges on all users of electricity, such as general use, education, industrial use, and farming use, as well as housing usage, is different from the progressive system, as the system that imposes excess use charges on all users of electricity, among the terms and conditions of the first agreement, is operated to the same effect as that of the first agreement. Even if the system that imposes charges on the use in excess of a certain quantity of electricity differs from the progressive system and character of the real meaning, the excess use charges of the first agreement impose charges on the basis of the unit price of the electric power volume applied to the volume exceeding 100 kmWh and below 200 kWh of the electric power for residential use, so long as the progressive system of the first agreement is deemed null and void due to the foregoing reasons, it is reasonable to view that the excess use charges imposed on the basis of invalid electric power volume charges are also null and void.

I) As seen earlier, the consumers of electricity are bound to follow the terms and conditions of the electricity prepared by the Defendant, and it is difficult to view that the illegality of the terms and conditions of the first contract is resolved solely on the ground that the Defendant informed the Plaintiffs of the fact that the Defendant knew of the fact that the Defendant entered the progressive rate in the demand form

C. Scope of unjust enrichment

As seen earlier, it was recognized that only the bottom portion of the standard monthly electricity rate table, which provides for a progressive system, not all the parts concerning the electricity for housing, has been invalidated. As such, it is reasonable to apply the above provision to the calculation of electricity rates in the event that the basic electricity rate and the electricity rate for the use of not more than 100kWh corresponding to the first phase of the electricity for housing on the monthly electric rate table of the standard monthly electric rate table of the contract 1 is valid, and that such provision remains flexible. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiffs the electricity rate that the Plaintiffs paid to the Defendant from August 6, 2012 to January 13, 2013, the period to which the first agreement was applied, and that the difference between the basic electricity rate and the electricity rate calculated according to the electricity rate of not more than 10kWh at the time of use and the electricity rate of not more than 100kWh as above, without legal grounds.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that if the progressive output is deemed null and void, the plaintiffs who used electricity as a charge less than the type cost without legal grounds that the difference between the class cost and the electric charges paid by the plaintiffs were derived from the profits of the difference between the class cost and the class cost. However, as seen above, it is a separate issue as to whether the plaintiffs' fees fall short of the class cost, and as to the portion of the electric charges in the monthly electric charges table of the first standardized contract, the whole portion on the residential power is not null and void, and the only portion falling under the progressive output is null and void, it is reasonable to view that the electricity supply contract exists effectively to pay the electric charges in accordance with the basic rate of 10kWh (10kWh) at the time of use between the plaintiffs and the defendant. Accordingly, this part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted on the premise that the whole part on the electric power of

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, from August 6, 2012 to January 13, 2013, the Defendant is obligated to pay the amount of the electricity used by the said Plaintiffs as unjust enrichment to the Plaintiffs indicated in the “Plaintiff” in the separate sheet for calculating the amount of unjust enrichment by Plaintiff 2, which corresponds to the difference between the electricity charges already paid by the said Plaintiffs from August 6, 2012 to January 13, 2013, the basic fees applied at the time of use of 10kWh and the electricity charges calculated in accordance with the electricity charges by Plaintiff 2, as indicated in the separate sheet for calculating the amount of unjust enrichment by Plaintiff 2, the “total sum of unjust enrichment by the Plaintiff” as stated in the separate sheet for calculating the amount of unjust enrichment by Plaintiff 2, and each of the above amounts, after the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in which the Defendant is considered to be a malicious beneficiary due to failure in the lawsuit in this case, as sought by the said Plaintiffs, to dispute on the existence or scope of the Defendant’s performance obligation from October 8, 2016.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the provision of the contract of this case in the lawsuit of this case is dismissed in its entirety as it is unlawful, and since the plaintiffs' claim for return of unjust enrichment stated in the "Plaintiff" in the calculation table of the amount of unjust enrichment by plaintiff 2 is justified within the above recognition scope, it is accepted and the remaining claims are dismissed

[Attachment 1] Omitted

[Attachment 2] Omitted

[Attachment 3] Omitted

[Attachment 4] Relevant Statutes: omitted

[Attachment] List of Plaintiffs: Omitted

Judges Hong-chul (Presiding Judge)

1) Before the amendment by Act No. 11690 on March 23, 2013, the Minister of Knowledge Economy was the same.