logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.09.22 2016가단139842
위약금 청구의 소
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 58,644,401 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from September 21, 2016 to November 10, 2016.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. From around 192, the Defendant was engaged in the clothing processing business under the trade name of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 4th floor of the ground-based building B as “C,” and was supplied with electricity by the Plaintiff for industrial power at the above place (hereinafter “the electric use place of this case”).

B. On June 26, 2001, the Defendant reported the closure of the business at the competent tax office.

C. On May 9, 2016 and May 12, 2016, the Plaintiff received information from the Defendant that he/she was using a house without running a business at the instant electrical use place, and determined that the Defendant used only general residential electrical facilities at the instant electrical use place through a field investigation. On September 6, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that he/she shall pay 58,64,400 won for penalty due to a breach of contract by type (use of housing for industrial purposes) from April 201 to March 2016.

From April 201 to March 2016, when applying electric power for the volume of electricity used at the place of electric use in this case, and for the pertinent volume of electricity used for the purpose of applying electric power for the purpose of applying the same, electric charges and electric power for housing shall be as stated in the corresponding column of the attached Table, respectively.

E. Of the Plaintiff’s terms and conditions of electricity supply and the enforcement rules thereof, the parts relating to this case are as follows.

Article 44 (Penalties) ① If a customer uses electricity in violation of this terms and conditions and the charges are not calculated reasonably, he/she shall be paid a penalty up to three times the amount that is not calculated appropriately.

(2) The amount which is not calculated properly under paragraph (1) shall not mean the difference between the amount calculated according to the supply terms and conditions prescribed in this standardized contract and the amount calculated according to the improper method of use.

(3) The period during which the charges are not calculated properly shall not be verified.

arrow