beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates the heading house with the trade name of “E” as “E” on the 101, 102, 104, and 106 of the 1st floor of the “D” shopping mall located in Dasan-si. The Defendant operates the heading house of “F” from August 2010 to 201 to 204 of the 2nd floor of the said commercial building.
B. On February 1, 2012, the Plaintiff demanded confirmation that G, who is the electrical safety manager of the above commercial building, excessively cut electricity charges. On the same day, G found that the electric wires of air conditioners used in the Defendant’s party room, were mistakenly connected to the electric measuring instruments of the above commercial building 102 (hereinafter “the instant electric measuring instruments”). At that time, the Defendant’s air wires of air conditioners were separated from the instant electric measuring instruments.
C. On June 5, 2013, G: (a) around August 2010 to February 2, 2012, G prepared “the current status of electricity rates of No. D 102” indicated as the use volume of the instant electric measuring instrument from around August 5, 2010 to around February 5, 2012; and (b) around February 2012, G separately divided the Defendant’s heating and cooling cable from the electric measuring instrument of this case to the date of the use of the instant electric measuring instrument.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 5, Gap evidence 9-1 through 18, Gap evidence 10, Gap evidence 11-1 and 11-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff had the Plaintiff pay KRW 6,282,818 of the usage fee for the Defendant’s air consumption for air conditioners by falsely connecting the air wires of air conditioners used by himself from August 2010 to February 2012 to the Plaintiff’s air conditioners.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the above 6,282,818 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff.
B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 8-3 through 21, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff paid 6,280,818 won to the defendant's air conditioners, and the above facts are comprehensively taken into account.