D. S.C. (Law Firm Yang Hun-Hun, Attorney Lee Dong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Urban Gas Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Gyeongsungsung, Attorneys Seo-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Korea District Heating Corporation (Attorney Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

May 24, 2012

1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) pays to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) Seoul Urban Gas Co., Ltd. 256,30,814 and the interest rate of 20% per annum from April 18, 2012 to the day of full payment.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s main claim against the Seoul Urban Gas Corporation, Defendant Korea District Heating Corporation’s claim against the Defendant Korea District Heating Corporation, and Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s remaining counterclaim claims against the Seoul Urban Gas Corporation are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the portion arising between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) Seoul Urban Gas Corporation totaling the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim totaling the two-thirds of the two-thirds of the costs of lawsuit and the remainder is borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Seoul Urban Gas Corporation, respectively. The portion arising between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant Korea District Heating Corporation shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The principal lawsuit: The Seoul Urban Gas Corporation shall pay to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) 1,175,866,415 won, the amount calculated by the ratio of 20% per annum to the day following the day of delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

Counterclaim: The Plaintiff shall pay to Defendant Seoul Urban Gas Co., Ltd. 281,343,159 won and 20% interest per annum from the day following the day of service of a copy of the instant counterclaim to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

(a) An urban development project of a ancient farming district;

1) On August 24, 2004, the Gyeonggi-do Governor of the Gyeonggi-do designated 987,940 square meters of land of 344,00 Won-dong Meal Dong-dong, Yongsan-gu as an urban development zone, and on August 24, 2005, the implementer established an urban development plan with the content of changing the method of implementation as an urban development project association for the non-party fish farming district (hereinafter “urban Development Project Association”) and the method of implementation. On May 4, 2006, the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do approved the urban development plan following the change of the area of the above urban development zone to 98,224 square meters.

2) The Plaintiff participated in the said urban development project as a landowner in the said urban development zone and a member of the said urban development project association, and obtained approval for the housing construction project to be implemented in the said urban development zone from the high-sea market around 2007.

(b) Payment of the cost of urban gas pipeline construction and general facility contributions;

1) On November 9, 2007, an urban development project association and the Plaintiff, Nonparty Co., Ltd., the members of the association, the construction of petitions, and the Daeyang Industrial Development Co., Ltd. entered into an agreement to supply urban gas arterial facilities, including the following provisions, with Defendant Seoul Urban Gas Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Urban Gas”) (hereinafter “A” in the following provisions, “B”, “A”, “A” and “A” refer to the Plaintiff, “A”, “A” and “B” respectively.

Article 2 (Scope of Construction and Calculation of Construction Costs)

(1) Construction scope

The scope of main facilities to be installed under this Agreement shall be the scope of pipeline construction to the boundary of a site by lot according to mutual consultation, as facilities for the supply of urban gas within a meal zone.

(2) Calculation of construction costs

The construction cost of this project district shall be calculated by “B” and the construction cost for the project shall be borne by “A” and “A” by 100%.

Article 3 (Deposit and Settlement of Construction Costs)

(1) After the conclusion of this Agreement, “A” shall deposit 100% of the construction cost into the bank account designated by “B” within two weeks from the date on which the claim for construction cost was filed by “B”. (Omission) “A” shall jointly and severally guarantee the obligation to pay construction cost (including delay damages) of “A” under this Article.

2) On November 7, 2008, Defendant Urban Gas demanded payment of KRW 1,315,56,000,00 as pipeline construction cost in accordance with Article 2(2) of the above Arrangement (hereinafter “Urban Gas Liability Clause”). On November 24, 2008, the Plaintiff paid KRW 87,081,185, which is the amount to be paid by the Plaintiff to Defendant Urban Gas Corporation according to the ratio of the construction of petitions and the apportionment with the Large Industry Development Co., Ltd., Ltd., as pipeline construction cost.

3) On July 2010, Defendant Urban Gas filed a claim with the Plaintiff for the payment of the Plaintiff of KRW 1,244, one apartment house of A1 block, one childcare center, and one apartment house of A2 block, one apartment house of A2 block, one building of kindergarten and elderly household, one apartment house of A4 block, 1,288 households, child care center, and one apartment house of e1 block, one apartment house of E1 block, 176 households, one apartment house of E1 block, one commercial building, and one city gas supplied in each building of E1 block, one building of 23,161, hr, and one gas meter, which are the applicable unit price of general facility contributions, in accordance with the provisions of the Gyeonggi-do Urban Gas Supply Act, by adding value-added tax to the following details. Accordingly, on July 20, 2010 and July 22, 2010, the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff’s general facility contributions to Defendant Urban Gas Corporation as the general facility contributions.

A1,244 79,234,480 won A4 multi-family housing 1,288,036,970 childcare centers of KRW 163,690 for older persons, KRW 163,690 for older persons, KRW 163,690 for older persons, KRW 163,690 for older persons, KRW 163,690 for older persons, KRW 163,690 for older persons, KRW 1666,11,210,020 for older persons, KRW 163,690 for older persons, KRW 163,690 for older persons, KRW 690 for older persons, KRW 163,690 for older persons, KRW 163,690 for older persons, KRW 690 for older persons, KRW 163,690 for older persons, 690 for general facilities: Total amount of contributions to 298,290

(c) Payment of charges for district heating construction expenses;

1) The Plaintiff entered into a heat supply and demand agreement, which includes the following provisions, with Defendant Korea District Heating Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Heating Corporation”) (hereinafter “user” in the following provisions 1).

4. He shall assume the responsibility for construction, maintenance and management on the basis of the limit of property pursuant to Article 22 of the Heat Supply Regulations, except for the cases where he/she has different contents in the heat supply regulations or makes a separate agreement.

6. The user shall pay the construction cost charges and charges, interest, late fees, and penalty, respectively, in accordance with the provisions of Article 18 (1) of the Integrated Energy Supply Act and Chapter V of the Heat Supply Regulations, and the provisions of Chapter VI.

2) The Plaintiff paid KRW 3,289,57,329 won to Defendant Heating Corporation on April 21, 2008 pursuant to the above heat supply contract clause (hereinafter “local heating construction cost charge clause”) among the above heat supply contract clause, and paid KRW 1,281,32,269,329 on August 11, 201 to Defendant Heating Corporation on September 10, 2008; and KRW 3,289,576 on February 22, 2011; and eventually, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,281,32,269 on August 10, 209; and KRW 1,281,32,269 on January 11, 201; and KRW 3,289,576 on February 22, 2011 to Defendant Heating Corporation as construction cost charge; and KRW 13,197,197,196.

(d) Relevant statutes;

The relevant provisions of the Housing Act, Urban Development Act, etc. concerning this case shall be as shown in the attached Form.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 13 (if there are additional numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 3, 7, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Heating System

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the provision on construction cost charges of the above area is invalid as it violates the mandatory provisions of Article 23(1) and (3) of the Housing Act, or Article 5(1) and (2) of the Urban Development Act (hereinafter “instant compulsory provisions”). (2) Even if it is not null and void, the “user” who shares construction cost charges under the Integrated Energy Supply Act is not the Plaintiff, who is the developer who uses the actual heating (hereinafter “the second Chapter”) and the Defendant heating Corporation should return the construction cost charges that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant Heating Corporation, as above, to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. Determination as to the First Claim

In light of the following circumstances, the above regional heating construction cost charges provisions cannot be deemed null and void because they violate each of the mandatory provisions of this case, and the above construction cost charges are imposed based on the heat supply regulations (hereinafter “he heating supply regulations”) reported to the Minister of Knowledge Economy pursuant to Articles 18(1) and 17 of the Integrated Energy Supply Act, and the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

1) Each of the instant mandatory provisions regulates matters concerning the duty to install facilities and cost-bearing in relation to a project proprietor (in the case of the Housing Act, in the case of the Urban Development Act, a project proprietor and a project proprietor (hereinafter referred to as a “project proprietor”) and a person who supplies gas or heating (hereinafter referred to as a “supplier”). Article 18(1) of the Integrated Energy Supply Act and Article 19-2(1) of the Urban Gas Business Act regulate matters concerning the cost-sharing of integrated energy supply facilities or gas supply facilities in relation to a project proprietor (in the case of the Urban Gas Business Act, an urban gas business operator and a general urban gas business operator are referred to as a “supplier”) or a user, and their legislative intent and applicable area

In other words, comprehensively taking account of each provision of Article 23 of the Housing Act and each provision of Article 54 and Article 55 of the Urban Development Act, the costs necessary for a housing construction project or an urban development project are to be borne by an operator. However, according to each of the compulsory provisions of this case, costs necessary for the installation of district heating facilities and gas supply facilities are to be borne by an operator, who is the person responsible for installation. The legislative intent of this case is to ensure that installation of large-scale arterial facilities, such as district heating facilities or gas, which are essential for human residential life, are essential for the provision of public infrastructure, such as district heating facilities or gas supply facilities, so it is considerably difficult to perform the project if the person responsible for installation and cost-bearing are entrusted to an operator, and to enable the supply of timely heating, gas, etc. by clearly stipulating the subject of installation and cost-bearing in advance (see Constitutional Court Order 2006Hun-Ba86, May 28, 2009).

Meanwhile, Article 18(1) of the Integrated Energy Supply Act and Article 19-2(1) of the Urban Gas Business Act stipulate that all or part of the installation costs of integrated energy supply facilities or gas supply facilities may be shared to users. This constitutes construction costs (in the case of Integrated Energy Supply Act) or installation charges (in the case of the Urban Gas Business Act), and the aforementioned construction costs and installation charges constitute beneficiaries’ charges (see Constitutional Court Decision 2001HunBa90, May 15, 2003). The legislative intent of the Act lies in that (i) first priority of collective energy supply projects or urban gas business is an urban-based business requiring large-scale installation investment, and (ii) it is necessary to establish a foundation to provide users with heating or gas at a price lower than that of investment funds at an effective level in light of the legislative intent of the Urban Gas Business Act (see Constitutional Court Order 2001Hun-Ba90, supra). In addition, the purpose of legislation of the Urban Gas Business Act is to ensure the supply of urban gas by the beneficiaries of such facilities by means of energy supply facilities under the general heating system.

As such, it is a separate issue that a supplier who is liable to install supply facilities bears the burden of installation costs and shares the burden of installation costs in the form of a beneficiary’s share to the user. As such, each of the instant mandatory provisions and Article 18(1) of the Integrated Energy Supply Act and Article 19-2(1) of the Urban Gas Business Act are different from the purpose of legislation and the applicable area. Therefore, the aforementioned provision is a provision that imposes on the user the amount of money of the beneficiary’s share based on Article 18(1) of the Integrated Energy Supply Act, and thus, it cannot be deemed that

2) The compulsory provisions of this case and Article 18(1) of the Integrated Energy Supply Act and Article 19-2(1) of the Urban Gas Business Act are not the same area to which the implementer and the user are identical. The cost of installing newly installed supply facilities for the purpose of supplying integrated energy or urban gas to the relevant user is not the cost of installing all the installation facilities installed by the supplier from the commencement of the business to the use of the relevant user. Therefore, the supplier is not the same amount of cost of installation of the relevant urban development project under Article 35 and attached Table 2, regardless of the amount of the installation cost of the relevant facility (in the case of regional heating, the heat supply of housing is not the same amount as the cost of installation of the relevant urban development project and the cost of installation of the relevant urban development project, not the cost of installation of the relevant urban development project and the cost of installation under Article 7, 23, 161/h, and 98 of the Urban Development Act, which are the one to the relevant user, are not the one to be imposed by the standard unit cost of the user.

3) Even if an implementer bears the construction cost of heating and urban gas pipeline facilities from the boundary of a housing complex to each household, it cannot be deemed that the implementer has double the construction cost charges or facility charges imposed on the implementer. This is because the construction cost charges and facility charges do not relate to the construction cost of heating and urban gas pipeline facilities from the boundary of a housing complex to each household, as seen below.

In other words, construction costs under the Integrated Energy Supply Act are imposed on construction costs of supply facilities under the same Act. The term "supply facilities" refers to supply facilities for the production, transportation, or distribution of integrated energy, which are facilities for the management of a supplier (Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the same Act), i.e., heat source facilities (heating or cooling heat media and equipment for heating equipment), heat transport facilities (heating or distributing heat media as equipment and accessory equipment related to the transportation or distribution of heat pipes, circular pumps and other heat), and other supplier-owned facilities related to the supply of heat media (Article 34 (1), Article 5 subparagraphs 2, 3, and 5 of the Heat Supply Regulations).

In addition, facility contributions under the Urban Gas Business Act are imposed on the installation cost of gas supply facilities under the same Act. The term "gas supply facilities" means gas manufacturing facilities (loading, unloading, storage, chemicaling, and transmitting facilities of urban gas, and appurtenant facilities), gas pipeline facilities [the former valve of measuring instruments, in cases where measuring instruments are installed on the outer wall of a building owned or occupied by gas users (the front valve of a building, in cases where measuring instruments are installed on the outside wall of a building owned or occupied by a gas user, etc., the outer wall of the building), and accessory facilities] and gas filling facilities (the storage equipment, treatment facilities, compressed gas facilities, charging facilities, and ancillary facilities installed to charge urban gas in an urban gas filling station) (Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the same Act, Article 2 (4) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and Article 2 (4) of the same Act). As such, construction cost charges and facility contributions are not imposed on the construction cost of heating and urban gas pipeline facilities from the boundary of a housing complex to each household.

On the other hand, even if the Defendants were to collect the depreciation costs by reflecting the regional heating charges or urban gas charges, it cannot be deemed that the Si facilities are recovered twice. This is because according to Article 31(1) and attached Table 8 of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Gas Business Act and Article 208-219 of the Gyeonggi-do Public Notice of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Gas Business Act, the depreciation costs should be deducted in calculating the cost of urban gas facilities. According to Article 20-3 of the Integrated Energy Supply Act, the amount equivalent to the depreciation costs of the supply facilities acquired with the cost of construction shall be accumulated annually in the inside of the Defendant heating Corporation as the supply facilities cost and used for the investment of the supply facilities without the outflow of the cost by shareholders distribution, etc. (see Constitutional Court Order 2001Hun-Ba90

Even if the above reasons are deemed unfair as the supplier’s double recovery of Si facilities, construction cost charges and facility contributions are based on the legal grounds such as the Integrated Energy Supply Act, the heat supply regulations thereunder, the Urban Gas Business Act, and the Urban Gas Supply Regulations accordingly, so long as the aforementioned construction cost charges and facility contributions do not constitute unjust enrichment on the sole basis of the foregoing reasons.

4) In addition, considering the special nature of an urban development project, construction cost charges and facility charges cannot be deemed as having no legal ground contrary to the mandatory provisions of Articles 55(1) and 55(2) of the Urban Development Act. In this case, the Plaintiff first applies the Urban Development Act with respect to the installation of heating or gas supply facilities in an urban development zone, and the Defendants are prohibited from imposing construction cost charges or facility charges based on Article 18(1) of the Integrated Energy Supply Act and Article 19-2(1) of the Urban Gas Business Act. However, there is no ground to view that the same is not applicable to the installation of heating or gas supply facilities in an urban development zone. Rather, the supplier cannot share the costs of installing heating or gas supply facilities in the urban development zone in the form of a beneficiary’s share. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is able to develop urban development projects and promote urban development projects in the form of urban development in a way that is contrary to the purpose of legislation by making it difficult for the supplier to share enormous installation costs in the urban development zone and contribute to urban development projects in a more systematic and systematic sector.

C. Determination on the second proposal

In light of the following circumstances, Article 18(1) of the Integrated Energy Supply Act provides that a supplier may share construction costs to a “user”, and Article 2 Subparag. 4 of the same Act provides that “user” shall be “person who is supplied with integrated energy from a business entity (including a person who intends to be supplied with integrated energy)” to include not only a person who is actually supplied with and uses integrated energy, but also a person who intends to be supplied with an “user”, which may share construction costs, and the Plaintiff’s request for heat supply to Defendant heating System in accordance with Article 6 of the Heat Supply Act and concluded a heat supply contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Heating System as an employer. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is deemed to be a “user” who shares construction costs under the Integrated Energy Supply Act. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Determination on the main claim and counterclaim between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Urban Gas

A. Determination as to the grounds for the principal claim

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the provision on the cost of the above urban gas pipeline construction is null and void in violation of Article 23(1) and (3) of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 8657 of Oct. 17, 2007; hereinafter the "former Housing Act") or Article 55(1) and (2) of the Urban Development Act, and thus, the pipeline construction cost that the plaintiff paid to the defendant urban gas does not have any legal ground, and other general facility construction cost that the plaintiff paid to the defendant urban gas is not a legal ground contrary to each of the instant compulsory provisions, and thus, the defendant urban gas should return the pipeline construction cost and general facility contribution that the plaintiff paid to the defendant as above to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

2) Determination on the part of the general facility contributions

According to Article 19-2 of the former Urban Gas Business Act (amended by Act No. 845 of May 17, 2007) (amended by Act No. 8186 of Nov. 3, 2007), Article 19-2 of the former Urban Gas Business Act (amended by Act No. 845 of May 17, 2007) applies from the date of first construction of gas supply facilities after April 4, 2007, which was the enforcement date of the amended Act. The Plaintiff and Defendant Urban Gas Business Act entered into an agreement on supply of gas arterial facilities on Nov. 9, 2007; the Plaintiff’s supply of urban gas facilities to Defendant Urban Gas Business Association on Nov. 24, 2008 (amended by Act No. 955 of Nov. 24, 2008); and the Plaintiff’s supply of urban gas facilities to Defendant Urban Gas Business Operators after the enforcement date of the amended Urban Gas Business Act (amended by Act No. 973, Nov. 24, 2007).

Therefore, according to the circumstances of Article 19-2(1) and Article 20 of the Urban Gas Business Act, the general facility contributions paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant Urban Gas is imposed by the urban gas supply regulations approved by the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do pursuant to Article 19-2(1) and Article 20 of the same Act, and as seen earlier, according to the above circumstances, the imposition of the above general facility contributions is in violation of each of the mandatory provisions of this case and cannot be seen as null and void. Thus,

3) Determination on the part of piping construction cost

In light of the legislative purport of Article 36(1) and (3) of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by the Housing Act No. 6916 of May 29, 2003; hereinafter referred to as the "State Promotion Act") which intends to ensure the low supply of housing or housing sites and ultimately realize the stability of residential life essential for improving the people's welfare by bearing the costs of installing gas arterial facilities on the project operator, and the contents and nature of the duty to install gas arterial facilities under the main promotion Act, Article 37 of the Jeju Promotion Act, Article 35(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Jeju Promotion Act, and Article 36(1) and (3) of the same Enforcement Decree of the Housing Promotion Act, it is reasonable to view that the provisions of Article 36(1) and (3) of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act, at least in the case of gas arterial facilities according to the usual size and installation method, are mandatory regulations that can not be arbitrarily excluded through an agreement with the project operator implementing the housing construction project or the housing site development project, and the provisions of Article 360(3).

In this case, the Plaintiff’s health team and the Plaintiff’s business entity who has obtained approval for the housing construction project plan from the high-sea market and carries out the project accordingly are as seen earlier. The provision on the cost of the above cost of the urban gas pipeline is to ensure that the Defendant’s urban gas facility for the supply of urban gas in the urban development zone bears the construction cost for piping works up to the boundary of the site by lots to the Plaintiff, who is the business entity, as the project owner, as the facility for the supply of urban gas within the urban development zone.

Therefore, 87,081,185 won paid by the Plaintiff to Defendant Urban Gas is not a legal cause. Thus, barring any special circumstance, Defendant Urban Gas is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the above 877,081,185 won and damages for delay after September 22, 2011, which is the day following the day when the copy of the complaint in this case was delivered to Defendant Urban Gas, as sought by the Plaintiff.

B. Determination as to the good faith principle defense of Defendant Urban Gas

As Defendant Urban Gas is able to supply urban gas to Defendant Urban Gas using due to a change in heating system of the urban development project association, the urban development project association has the intent to share the pipeline construction cost to Defendant Urban Gas, so that agreement was reached such as the provision on the burden of the above city gas pipeline construction cost by continuously requesting the supply of urban gas using the above urban development zone. Thus, it is argued that the Plaintiff, a member of the urban development project association, seeking the return of pipeline construction cost already paid on the ground that the provision on the burden of the above city gas pipeline construction cost is null and void, is not allowed against the principle

In light of the principle of good faith, rejection of the assertion that the legal act is null and void against the mandatory law would result in completely excluding the legislative intent of the mandatory law. Thus, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the person who, despite being aware that it is null and void due to its violation of the law, asserts invalidation on the ground of its violation of the compulsory law and thus cannot be deemed to constitute an abuse of rights (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da33218, Nov. 11, 1997; 9Da53490, May 15, 2001).

In this case, there is no special circumstance that even if the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above provision on the cost of installing city gas pipelines is invalid against the mandatory provisions of Article 23(1) and (3) of the former Housing Act, it does not go against the purport of the above mandatory provisions even if it is rejected by the principle of good faith, etc., and therefore, the above defense

C. Determination on the conjunctive offset defense and counterclaim claim of Defendant Urban Gas

1) Preliminary set-off and summary of the counterclaim claim

Defendant Urban Gas asserts that it has a claim for the cost of installing facilities exclusively used for cooking against the Plaintiff, and, in case where it is judged that the provision on the cost of installing the above urban gas pipelines becomes null and void, the service of the copy of the counterclaim of this case is set off by the claim for the cost of installing facilities exclusively used for cooking against the Plaintiff within the equivalent amount of the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the cost of the pipeline construction against the Plaintiff’s city gas. Defendant Urban Gas asserts that it set off the claim within the equivalent amount of the claim for return

2) The existence of the right to claim the payment of the cost of cooking facilities

As seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant Urban Gas has commenced after April 4, 2007, which was the effective date of the Urban Gas Business Act amended by Act No. 8186, Jan. 3, 2007. The Plaintiff constitutes the “person who requests the supply of urban gas” under Article 19-2(1) of the Urban Gas Business Act [or the “gas user” under Article 19-2(1) of the former Urban Gas Business Act (amended by Act No. 9983, Jan. 27, 2010) and the “gas user” under Article 4 subparag. 8 of the Gyeonggi-do Urban Gas Supply Regulations. Furthermore, the Plaintiff supplied the Plaintiff with the exclusive use of cooking for the Plaintiff’s building located in the Plaintiff’s business district, and the Plaintiff supplied the Plaintiff’s general gas facility contributions to the Defendant Urban Gas Business Act, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to supply the exclusively used urban gas under Article 7(1) of the Gyeonggi-do Urban Gas Business Act prior to the conclusion of the contract with the Defendant Urban Gas Business Act.

Furthermore, with regard to the amount of contributions to the facilities exclusively used for cooking, the method of calculating contributions to the facilities exclusively used for cooking under Article 19-2(4) of the Urban Gas Business Act, Article 31(1), (3), and attached Table 8 of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Gas Business Act, Article 8 of the Gyeonggi-do Notice No. 2008-219 of the Gyeonggi-do Notice No. 2008-219 of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Gas Business Act, and Article 7(2) and attached Table 2

The amount borne by gas users = Applicable unit price ¡¿ (monthly number of months of the details of gas supply facilities - number of months of use) ¡À (monthly number of months of the details of gas supply facilities) ¡¿ standard gas consumption per hour by gas users.

- Applicable unit price: 89,952 won/metres/hr

-the monthly number of gas supply facilities shall be 240 months.

- The monthly number of months used shall be applied by summing up the number of months from the connection point of the user whose use has been changed to the cooking use until the conversion point: Provided, That with respect to the monthly number of months used below one month, not less than 15 days shall be regarded as one month, and less than 15 days shall not be included in the

-standard gas consumption per hour by gas users: Standard gas consumption by a hour not exceeding 40 cubic meters/hr shall apply to gas measuring instruments grading.

As seen earlier, Defendant Urban Gas supplied the Plaintiff with urban gas exclusively used for cooking from the beginning, and the gas meter rating of 2.5 is the same as seen earlier. Therefore, the contributions to cooking facilities exclusively used for cooking to be borne by the Plaintiff according to the above calculation method are as follows:

○ Charges for facilities exclusively used for cooking per household: 224,880 won

= 89,952 (unit price for application) ¡¿ (240 months - 0) ¡À 240 months) ¡¿ 2.5 (Gas Measuring Instruments Rating)

○ A1 block: 224,880 won ¡¿ 1,244 households ¡¿ 1.1 (including value-added tax) = 307,725,792 won

A2 block: 224,80 won ¡¿ 1,975 households ¡¿ 1.1 (including value-added tax) = 488,551,80 won

A4 block: 224,80 won ¡¿ 1,288 generation ¡¿ 1.1 (including value-added tax) = 318,609,984 won

E1 block: 224,80 won ¡¿ 176 households ¡¿ 1.1 (including value-added tax) = 43,536,768 won

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Defendant Urban Gas a total of KRW 1,158,424,344 (= KRW 307,725,792 + KRW 488,551,80 + KRW 318,609,984 + KRW 43,536,768) and damages for delay after April 18, 2012, on which the copy of the counterclaim in this case was served on the Plaintiff.

3) Determination on the defense of set-off

As seen earlier, Defendant Urban Gas has the right to claim to the Plaintiff for the share of the facility for cooking exclusive use. The claim for the share of the above share of the facility for cooking exclusive is due on April 17, 2012, a copy of the counterclaim of this case, which was at the time when the Plaintiff was requested to discharge, delivered to Defendant Urban Gas. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against Defendant Urban Gas and the claim for the share of the facility for cooking exclusive use against the Plaintiff was set off on the same day as at April 17, 2012.

In addition, since the fact that the duplicate of the counterclaim in this case, stating the expression of intent that the defendant city gas set off the above amount of claim against the plaintiff on April 17, 2012, which was clearly recorded, was served on the plaintiff on April 17, 2012, the plaintiff thus, the plaintiff's right to claim the return of unjust enrichment against the plaintiff, which was thereby, 25,042,345 won for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from September 22, 2011 to April 17, 2012, which is set-off under the Civil Act (i.e., 87,081,185 won x annual 5% x 5% x 209 days x 366 days per annum) and principal 87,081,185 won per annum of the defendant city gas's right to claim the return of unjust enrichment from the plaintiff's above right to claim the return of unjust enrichment, has merit.

4) Determination on the counterclaim claim

The Plaintiff’s obligation to contribute to the facilities exclusively used for cooking to Defendant Urban Gas remains (i.e., KRW 1,58,424,344 - KRW 25,042,345 - KRW 877,081,185). As such, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to Defendant Urban Gas the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from April 18, 2012 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the set-off.

4. Conclusion

Ultimately, the counterclaim claim against the defendant urban gas is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the counterclaim claim against the defendant urban gas, the plaintiff's main claim against the defendant urban gas and the claim against the defendant heating construction are dismissed as it is without merit.

[Attachment]

Judges Jeon Byung-chul (Presiding Judge)

1) The heat supply and demand agreement was submitted between the Plaintiff and the Defendant heating Corporation on June 9, 2010 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant heating Corporation. As seen below, the time when the Plaintiff paid construction cost charges to Defendant Heating Corporation was from April 21, 2008, and evidence regarding the contract at the time was not submitted separately, but unless there is any dispute between the parties, the content of the heat supply and demand agreement concluded at the time is the same as or similar to that of evidence A No. 8-1 to 4.

2) The heat supply and demand contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant Heating Corporation appears to have been renewed several times from April 21, 2008 when the Plaintiff first paid construction cost charges to Defendant Heating Corporation from June 2, 201 to June 2, 201 when the construction cost charges were paid. Article 23 of the Housing Act should be determined based on Article 23(1) and (3) of the Housing Act applied at the time of entering into each of the above heat supply and demand agreements, on the grounds that the amendment to each of the above provisions was made during the above period. However, since there was no change in the content of the parts related to the district heating facilities at issue in this case, it is determined based on the current provision for convenience.

3) The following circumstances also determined that not only the construction cost charges for district heating facilities, but also the facility contributions for urban gas supply facilities, were used for the same reason in determining the portion of general facility contributions among the principal claim against the Plaintiff’s city gas facilities.