logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원영월지원 2015.12.23 2015가단11033
전기요금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 53,968,560 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from March 1, 2015 to December 23, 2015.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff entered into an electricity use agreement with A Hospital and the building of the hospital under the Defendant-affiliated with 500 kW, and thereafter, the Plaintiff supplied electricity to A Hospital pursuant to the said agreement, and A Hospital has paid the electricity fee calculated and imposed by the Plaintiff on the basis of 360 times.

B. On December 17, 2012, A Hospital completed the construction of expanding the voltage equipment of the hospital building to 650kW, and entered into an electricity use contract with the Plaintiff and the transformer equipment to 650kW (hereinafter “instant contract”) on December 30, 2012, and thereafter, the Plaintiff supplied electricity to A Hospital pursuant to the instant contract, and the hospital paid the electricity fee calculated and imposed by the Plaintiff based on 360 times.

C. However, on February 11, 2015, the Plaintiff confirmed that the Defendant applied 480 times from January 2013 to December 2015 due to the extension of the voltage equipment, but at the end of February, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the additional payment of the electric charges of KRW 53,968,560 (including value-added tax and the Electrical Industry Foundation Fund) as the electric charges of KRW 53,968,560 (including value-added tax and the Electrical Industry Foundation Fund) were less due to the error in the application of the meter.

Accordingly, A Hospital rejected the plaintiff's demand by asserting that it is unfair to demand the defendant to pay the electricity fee, since the plaintiff imposed the electricity fee by applying the drainage to his occupational negligence.

E. Meanwhile, while entering into the instant contract, the Plaintiff and A Hospital decided to follow the terms and conditions of the Plaintiff’s electric supply and the rules of implementation. Article 76 of the terms and conditions of the electric supply relating to the instant case is as follows.

Article 76 (Re-Calculation and Refund of Charges) (1) The difference between the re-calculated charges and the erroneously calculated charges shall be calculated from the monthly charges for the relevant month.

arrow