1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. A person who actually uses the electricity supplied to the Busan Dong-gu Bel (hereinafter “the instant telecom”). Although the Defendant entered into a power supply contract with the type of contract as a general electricity, the Defendant used the electricity for residential purposes in violation of Article 65 of the terms and conditions of the electricity supply.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff a penalty of KRW 34,542,790 for breach of contract from June 2007 to October 2014 (i.e., value-added tax of KRW 16,164,154 for evaded charges of KRW 598,070 for value-added tax of KRW 1,616,415 for penalty of KRW 16,164,154 for breach of contract and delay damages therefor).

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the power supply contract for the instant Moel is not a Defendant but C, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13 as well as the overall purport of the pleadings, the Defendant’s mother, upon filing an application for electricity use with the Plaintiff for the instant mother boat, concluded an electric utility use contract with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also referred C to the Defendant as the electrical user contractor and the Defendant as the actual electricity user at the time of the claim for electricity use fee against the Defendant for the instant mother boat (Seoul District Court Decision 2014Hu39324). The Defendant submitted a payment guarantee certificate for the payment guarantee for the “unpaid electricity fee” of C on September 26, 2013 to the Plaintiff.

According to the above facts, the parties to the electricity supply contract for the instant cartels are C, and the defendant is the guarantor for the unpaid electricity charge obligation of C.

The plaintiff's claim of this case is a claim for penalty for violation of the contract type rather than the unpaid electricity charges, and the obligation to pay penalty for violation of the contract type is a obligation separate from the obligation to pay the electricity charges due to the supply of electricity.

(Supreme Court Decision 201Da112032 Decided April 11, 2013). However, the Defendant is merely liable for unpaid electricity charges.