1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Facts constituting the premise of the dispute

A. The Plaintiff has been supplied with electricity from the Korea Electric Power Corporation in substantial Gu C Commercial Building in Cheongju-si.

B. The Defendant, the cause of confirmation of the Korea Electric Power Corporation, from April 2015 to September 2016, did not check the actual amount of electricity consumption of the said commercial building, and calculated electric charges by taking into account the previous amount of electricity consumption and taking into account the previous amount of electricity consumption.

C. On October 24, 2016, the Defendant’s successor confirmed the actual amount of electricity used in the said commercial building.

As a result, cumulative electric charges of KRW 818,480 have occurred, and the electric charges of KRW 306,360 have been imposed on the Plaintiff on November 2016.

The plaintiff filed a civil petition with the Korea Electric Power Corporation around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 6-2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. When the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the Korea Electric Power Corporation, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff 3,00,000 consolation money, cumulative electric charges of KRW 818,480, and the cumulative electric charges of KRW 306,360 on November 2016, and paid only the cumulative electric charges on behalf of the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sum of the consolation money and the electric utility charges on November 2016, KRW 3,306,360, and the delay damages.

3. Examining whether the Defendant agreed to pay consolation money and electric utility charges to the Plaintiff on November 2016, it is difficult to believe that the entry of evidence No. 11, which corresponds thereto, is difficult to believe as it is, and it is insufficient to recognize that there was an agreement as alleged by the Plaintiff solely with the entries of evidence Nos. 1, 5, 7, 8, and 9. There is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.