logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.08.24 2016가단220737
사용료
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 121,636,290 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from July 21, 2017 to July 24, 2017.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

A. On October 24, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into an electric use contract with the Defendant on the Seo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Building A (hereinafter “instant building”) (hereinafter “instant electric use contract”) and supplied electricity to the instant building.

B. On July 20, 2017, the amount of arrears as of July 20, 2017, out of the electricity charges supplied to the instant building under the instant electric use contract, is KRW 121,636,290.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 (including branch numbers in the case of additional numbers), and the plaintiff is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from July 24, 2017 to the date of delivery of a copy of the application for alteration of the purport of the claim in this case, barring any other special circumstances. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff losses for delay calculated at the rate of 121,636,290 per annum under the Commercial Act from July 21, 2017 to July 24, 2017, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the application for alteration of the purport of the claim in this case and cause of the claim in this case, and 5% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

(1) The Defendant asserts that, as an agent managing the instant building, the Plaintiff is not liable to pay the electricity fee to the Plaintiff merely because it is merely an agent managing the instant building, as long as the Plaintiff is a party to the instant electric use contract with the Defendant, so long as it is a party to the instant electric use contract, the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim is reasonable, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

arrow