1. The defendant's appeal and the request for return of provisional payment are all dismissed.

2. Expenses for filing an appeal, and those for filing an application for the return of provisional payments.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as follows: (a) the Defendant’s determination on the Defendant’s motion for return of provisional payment at the trial room is identical to the statement of the reasons for the first instance judgment (except for the part 3(c) of the reasons for the first instance judgment) except for any addition as set forth in paragraph (3) below; and (b) thus, the court shall accept it pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the defendant's argument at the trial

A. The Defendant’s assertion (1) and Article 44 and attached Table 4 of the Terms and Conditions of Electric Use contained in the Electric Power Use Contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant [4] provide that “The Defendant shall pay 1kWh 17.75 won per electric facility usage fee when using high voltage electricity over 600 V, separate from the electric charge.”

(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion that “the Plaintiff may continue to impose electric facilities usage fees according to the Defendant’s electric consumption, regardless of whether prior investment costs was recovered on the power supply facilities that it installed,” the meaning of the instant provision constitutes “a clause which is unreasonably unfavorable to the customer” as prescribed by Article 6 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, and thus, is null and void.

(3) In order to effectively continue the instant provision, the purport of the instant provision should be modified to the effect that “the Plaintiff may impose electric facilities usage fees on the Defendant until the amount of prior investment costs is recovered in the power supply facilities installed by the Plaintiff.”

(4) Ultimately, the instant provision ought to be interpreted to mean that “if the Plaintiff collects all prior investment costs for power supply facilities, no more charges for the use of electric facilities may be imposed.” Since the Plaintiff collected all prior investment costs from the users of power supply facilities including the Defendant by 2010, the Plaintiff collected all prior investment costs from the users of power supply facilities including the Defendant, the charges for the use of electric facilities from January 201 to the Defendant.