1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff is a resident of the Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan City apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and that the Defendant, who is in charge of managing the instant apartment, changed the electricity fee agreement with the Korea Electric Power Corporation from the “comprehensive contract” to the “short-day contract” to the “short-term contract” on July 2016, but did not apply the revised fare system until September 2017, and applied the “low-tension electricity fee for housing use” with a higher unit price according to the terms and conditions of the existing comprehensive contract and charged the Plaintiff an additional charge for the electricity fee.

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to refund the electricity charge that the Plaintiff bears additionally as above.

2. In the judgment of the court below, the contract method of the electricity rate contract with the Korea Electric Power Corporation was originally changed from July 19, 2016 to the single contract. The Korea Electric Power Corporation applies the unit price of the “low-tension power rate for house use” to the portion used for each household, and the “general high-tension power rate for house use” to the portion used for each household. On the other hand, in a single contract, the unit price of the “high-tension power rate for house use” is applied to the total amount used without distinguishing the portion used for each household from the portion used for common facilities. The unit price of the “high-tension for house use” is higher than the unit price of the “high-tension power rate for house use,” the unit price of the “high-tension for house use” is higher than the unit price of the “high-tension power rate for house use,” the Defendant calculated the electricity rate for individual use for each household after the above change of the contract was not disputed between the parties, or it is recognized by the evidence No. 3 and No. 4.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, as stated in No. 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings, are as follows.