1. The decision subject to review shall be revoked.

2. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following facts are acknowledged against the defendant (the plaintiff).

On July 1, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of penalty of KRW 202,595,848 and damages for delay on the ground that the type of electric power contract under the Electric Use Agreement was erroneous on July 1, 2011.

(D) On June 12, 2014, the Seoul District Court rendered a judgment ordering the Defendant to pay the amount of damages for delay on the part of the Defendant’s breach of contract type: (a) on June 12, 2014, KRW 94,803,859; (b) KRW 3,507,740; and (c) KRW 107,791,989; and (d) KRW 18,960,771 ( KRW 94,803,859, an amount equivalent to the difference between the electric utility charges and the agricultural electric utility charges; and (e) KRW 3,507,740; and (e) Value-added tax KRW 9,480; and (e) KRW 18,960,771 ( KRW 94,803

Accordingly, the Defendant appealed as Daejeon High Court 2014Na11879, and the Plaintiff filed an incidental appeal.

On May 27, 2015, the above court accepted part of the Plaintiff’s incidental appeal on the following grounds and sentenced the judgment ordering the Defendant to pay penalty of KRW 75,843,088 and delay damages (hereinafter “the judgment on review”) in addition to the money ordered by the first instance court to pay the Defendant.

The evidence No. 4-3 (Observance of the purpose of farming) is recognized by testimony of witness D of the first instance trial.

In full view of the evidence No. 4-3, evidence No. 10-1, and evidence No. 10-2, evidence No. 10-2, witness E and witness of the first instance court, etc., it is recognized that the Defendant prepared to the Plaintiff a letter of compliance with the purpose of farming specified in the phrase on penalty for breach of contract

In light of the above facts and the fact that the defendant does not fall under the category of electricity supply under the terms and conditions of the electricity supply and the fact that the contract for the electricity use between the plaintiff and the defendant also includes the penalty, the defendant is obligated to pay the penalty to the plaintiff due to the violation of

The electricity charge, the electricity fund, and the value-added tax from among the penalty of this case.