1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the entries and the purport of the whole arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 7, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

On June 13, 2006, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for the electric use of the building “Chown” located in the Incheon Gyeyang-gu and three parcels (hereinafter “instant building”). Around that time, the electric use contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

B. The Defendant: (a) around September 2015, KRW 3,744,00; (b) around October 2015, KRW 2,720,50; and (c) around November 2015, KRW 759,480; (b) around December 2015, KRW 112,130; (c) around January 2016, KRW 58,180; and (d) KRW 11,430 (i) around February 2016; (c) KRW 7,405,760 (= KRW 3,744,040; (d) KRW 2,720,50, KRW 759,480; and (e) KRW 112,130, KRW 58,180; and (e) KRW 11,430, Mar. 3, 2016.

C. Meanwhile, around March 2016, the Plaintiff sent a notice to the Defendant for payment of the unpaid electricity fee of KRW 7,405,760 in total, which was determined on April 11, 2016, but the Defendant did not pay it.

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The defendant's summary of the defendant's assertion transferred the ownership of the building of this case to Cridge (hereinafter "Cridge") around December 15, 2006, and thus, the electricity user fee for the building of this case should be borne by Cridge.

Therefore, the defendant is not a party, and thus, the lawsuit in this case is unlawful as it is filed against the other party who is not a party.

B. In a lawsuit for the performance of the order, the standing to be the defendant in a lawsuit for the performance of the order is the plaintiff's own claim and the decision can be absorbed into the judgment of the propriety of the claim, so the person alleged as the obligor is the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da18451, Nov. 28, 1995). We examine the instant lawsuit. Since it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the electricity fee against the Defendant, it is against the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant asserted as the obligor.