logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.29 2014가합527876
전기요금 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

On June 26, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the use of electricity with the Defendant to supply high-tension powerB 35,000kW to full-time and reserve power on the co-owned power plant located in the same coal site development zone 947 B/S operated by the Defendant. On June 26, 2008, the Plaintiff changed the type of contract into industrial (A) high-tension powerB and entered into a re-contract for the use of electricity.

(hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant electric use contract.” Paragraph (1) of the instant electric use contract provides that matters not specified in the instant electric use contract shall be governed by the Plaintiff’s terms and conditions of the electricity supply and the same Enforcement Rule, and the main contents of the attached other terms and conditions shall be as follows:

4. Under Article 63 (1) 1 of the terms and conditions of the supply of electricity, regardless of whether the electricity is used or not, basic charges on the spare power (Article 63 (1) 1 of the terms and conditions of the supply of electricity) to be supplied with the same voltage as the common voltage shall be monthly at a transformation that supplies the spare power pursuant to Article 63 (1) 1 of the terms

5. The reserve forces shall be on a regular basis; and

6. Incidental equipment must be installed so as not to be put in simultaneously.

The terms and conditions of the plaintiff's electricity supply, the enforcement rules, and the fee processing guidelines related to this case shall be as specified in the attached Table.

[Based on recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap 2, 3, 7 evidence, Eul 1 to 3 evidence (including each number in the case of serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant asserted the purport of the whole pleadings, as a whole, is a customer who will select a specific type of multi-line supply method (on the basis of the supply method of multi-line items) which functions as a preliminary line for different lines only when the two main lines are jointly connected to each other and are provided with electricity on a regular basis without distinction of main lines, and is a customer who will play a function as a preliminary line for different lines (on the other hand, the supply method of multi-line items).

arrow