logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.08.31 2016나75555
위약금 청구의 소
Text

1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the plaintiff's claim extended by this court, shall be modified as follows:

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is that the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is the same as the “1. Basic Facts”, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and G are divided into two electric use contract units for one electric use site and concluded an independent electric use contract with the Plaintiff by designating each contract type as “industrial (A) and “high voltageA”. As such, the Defendant is obligated to use electricity at the separate electric use place of each person who signed the contract with the Plaintiff.

However, in fact, “C” operated by the Defendant, the representative customer, and “G operated by the joint customer,” are the same business entity operated by the Defendant, and even if both are separate accounting units, the Defendant, the representative customer, used electricity in combination for the purpose of inspecting the Defendant’s products to the place of electric use of G, the joint customer, and actually used 300kW of power contract volume with the Defendant and G solely.

Although the Defendant had paid electricity charges under the “Industrial (B)” of each type of contract that uses 300kmW solely, the Defendant’s payment of electricity charges under the “Industrial (A)-Class II high voltageA” by dividing the volume of electricity used by the representative customer and the joint-use customer into 290ccW and 10kW, respectively, violates the obligation to share electricity charges by type of contract and by type of transformer equipment prescribed under Article 25 of the former Terms and Conditions of Supply and Article 16 of the Enforcement Rule thereof.

Therefore, the Defendant imposed an additional charge equivalent to KRW 35,701,890, value-added tax, KRW 3,570,189, KRW 037% on evaded electricity charges, KRW 1,320,970, and KRW 1,320,970 on the evaded electricity charges, and KRW 35 times the evaded electricity charges.

arrow