1. The plaintiff's appeal and the additional selective claims filed by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff operated a laundry as the owner of the building No. 1001, 111 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”). On December 2008, the Plaintiff leased the instant commercial building to Nonparty C, while transferring the facility of the laundry.

B. The B commercial building located in the instant commercial building and the 1002 commercial building adjacent thereto (hereinafter each “101 commercial building and 1002 commercial building”) were owned and owned by D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”). Around September 2007, D filed an application for electric use with the Defendant. Although the ownership of the instant commercial building was transferred from D to the Plaintiff, the name of the contractor was maintained as D.

C. Meanwhile, the electricity charges of the 1001 commercial building began to be late from May 2009, and accordingly, the Defendant suspended the supply of electricity to the 1001 commercial building on August 3, 2009, and D’s employees continued to connect the electricity of the 1002 commercial building to the instant commercial building for the electric use of the instant commercial building.

(1001 and 1002, there are roads with a width of 6 meters between the commercial and 1002. D.

After that, on February 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for electric utility under the Plaintiff’s name. On February 18, 2010, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,875,700 to the Defendant the overdue charge of the instant commercial building. On February 24, 2010, the Plaintiff installed electric measuring instruments for the instant commercial building.

(Installation Costs of 750,000 Won) . [Grounds for recognition] . [The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, Eul witness C's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the claim for return of unjust enrichment

A. On February 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that the cause of the claim was not the owner of the electric utility of the instant commercial building, and thus, even though there was no liability for the overdue electricity charges, the Plaintiff paid the overdue electricity charges instead of the owner of the instant commercial building, and installed the electric meters of the instant commercial building.

Therefore, the defendant is therefore the plaintiff.