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. Basic facts

A. On April 12, 2011, the Defendant concluded a contract under which the users of the instant contract for the use of electricity of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the Dongyang Distribution Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dongyang Distribution”) paid KRW 21,160,840 in lieu of the overdue electricity charge, and the Defendant entered into a contract under which the users of the instant contract for the use of electricity of the building of the building of

B. As electricity charges of KRW 11,053,730 on the instant building were unpaid from August 2013 to November 201, 2013, the Plaintiff took full-time measures on the instant building around November 26, 2013, and terminated the instant electrical use contract.

C. After the termination of the instant electric use contract, the Plaintiff entered into a new electric use contract with D, one of the shop lessees of the instant building, and subsequently supplied electricity to the instant building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid electricity charges of KRW 11,053,730 from August 8, 2013 to November 201, 2013, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from November 26, 2013 to January 9, 2014, the service date of the original copy of the instant payment order, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. At the time of concluding the instant electric use contract, the owner of the instant building at the time of the conclusion of the instant electric use contract, including the invalidation of the instant electric use contract, was one of the stock companies, not Gyeyang Distribution, and thus, the instant electric use contract concluded without the consent of the owner was null and void in violation of Article 8(3) of the terms and conditions of the electric use.

In addition, the plaintiff should be supplied with electricity.