The judgment below

The part against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the lower court determined that the Defendant used the electricity in violation of the instant electrical use contract, on the ground that the instant electric use contract was concluded on the premise that the Defendant was supplied with electricity by using only one transformers, and that the Defendant, in order to use two different voltages at the instant electric power plant, should install a string device that prevents the possibility of being supplied with electricity at the same time via two different voltages, and that the string device installed at the instant electric power plant enables the Defendant to be supplied with electricity at the same time via two different voltages.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, although the reasoning of the lower judgment is partially inappropriate, the lower court’s conclusion is acceptable.

In doing so, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles on contractual interpretation, the Electric Utility Act, the terms and conditions of electricity supply, or violating the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation.

2. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. Examining the terms and conditions of the electricity supply and the provisions of the enforcement rules applicable to the instant case, the penalty under the said terms and conditions of the electricity supply can be deemed as having the nature of liquidated damages and penalty, and in such a case, it is reasonable to deem that the penalty may be reduced based on the total amount of penalty pursuant to Article 398(2) of the Civil Act.

However, even if a reduction is made on the basis of the total amount of penalty, the amount equivalent to the evaded electrical charge (including the electricity fund and value added tax) out of the penalty is the amount that the customer has to have been paid by the electrical charge, and thus, it is not permissible to reduce the amount less than the evaded electrical charge, barring any special circumstance, as exceeding

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Da238530 Decided November 9, 2018). B.

The court below held the defendant's objection.