(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.10.21 2015나225 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.10.21 2015나225

도시가스사용료

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff entered into an urban gas use contract with the defendant who was operating a marina-type shop in the 2nd floor B of Sejong-si (hereinafter "the instant store") around October 2007 and continued to supply urban gas to the instant store. As of October 2009, the fact that the unpaid urban gas fee for the instant store was 3,347,350 can be acknowledged.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid urban gas fee of KRW 3,347,350.

2. On the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant transferred his/her right to operate the relevant marina shop to C and D on December 2008, and notified the plaintiff of the change of the city gas user of the relevant shop at that time, and terminated the urban gas use contract with the plaintiff. The plaintiff's unpaid urban gas usage fee claimed by the plaintiff is imposed on the part used by C and D after the termination of the urban gas use contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's claim cannot be accepted.

However, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the change of urban gas users of the instant store by only the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and there is no other evidence. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the gas use contract relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was effective until October 2009.

It is merely an internal circumstance between the defendant, C, and D that the defendant transferred the right to operate the relevant marina shop to C and D, and thus, cannot be asserted against the plaintiff.

However, if the defendant's assertion is true, the defendant can claim the return of unjust enrichment against C and D after paying the unpaid urban gas fee to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the relation between the plaintiff and the defendant's gas use contract is terminated on December 2008 is further examined.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원안산지원 2019.01.30 2017가단58673

-전주지방법원 2020.06.18 2018나13298

-울산지방법원 2020.12.16 2020가단106021

-인천지방법원 2015.10.08 2015나4917

-서울동부지방법원 2020.12.15 2020가단126850