The meaning of “transfer of accommodation prices” under Article 11 of the Electricity Supply Regulations

The movement of an accommodation whose rights and duties are succeeded to the use of electricity by the former accommodation under Article 11 of the Regulations on the Supply of Electricity under Article 15 of the Electric Utility Act means that the object of the supply of electricity continues to exist as it is: Provided, That the case where the owner of the object of the supply of electricity or the user of the electricity, etc. is changed, and the case where the buyer of the real estate completely removes the object of the supply of electricity and constructs another

Article 15 of the Electric Utility Act

A school juristic person Typha Institute

Korea Electric Power Corporation

Busan District Court (82 Gohap1882)

(1) Revocation of the original judgment shall be revoked.

(2) The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 2,082,637 with 5% per annum from May 1, 1982 to March 31, 1983, and 25% per annum from April 1 to the date of full payment.

(3) The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

(4) All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant in the first and second trials.

(5) Paragraph (2) can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,082,637 won with interest rate of 25 percent per annum from the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

Paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

First of all, according to the records, since the judge's authority to take part in the above new construction on the date for pleading of the third party (Records No. 74), which is the date for pleading of the original judgment, was obviously involved in the judgment, and the original judgment is unfair because it violates the law and procedure of the judgment, and it is decided again to revoke the judgment. The plaintiff acquired the ownership of the real estate stated in the attached list on September 28, 1981, which was sold by the plaintiff to the defendant on Oct. 22, 1982, and paid the above new construction charges to the defendant on Apr. 2, 1982, since there was no dispute between the parties to the above new construction charges for the above new construction charges for the above new construction charges for the above new construction charges for the above new construction charges for the above new construction charges for the above new construction charges for the above new construction charges for the defendant, and there was no dispute between the parties to the above new construction charges for the above new construction charges for the above new construction charges and the above new construction charges for the above new construction charges charges for Gap No. 14 through No. 6.

According to the rules on the supply of electricity under Article 15 of the Electric Utility Act, in a case where there is a change in the expropriation price, the defendant shall succeed to all the rights and obligations related to the use of electricity to the defendant of the previous expropriation price. Thus, even in the case of this case, the above non-party's obligations related to the use of electricity to the defendant of the previous expropriation price are succeeded to the plaintiff of the above building at the successful bid. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for this case was alleged to be unjustifiable. Thus, according to the evidence No. 1 of this case, if the new expropriation price is transferred due to sale, inheritance, or other reason, according to Article 11 of the Rules on the Supply of Electricity under Article 15 of the Electric Utility Act, if the new expropriation price wishes to change the ownership, the defendant shall succeed to all the rights and obligations related to the use of electricity to the defendant of the previous expropriation price, but the movement of the previous expropriation price is deemed to continue to exist as it is, however, if the owner or the user of the above building is newly constructed to the same place as the above case.

In addition, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff agreed to pay the electricity charges between the Plaintiff and the Defendant during the period from March 23, 1982 to April 2, 1982, and received the said electricity charges accordingly. Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above 2,082,637 won and the following day after the delivery date of the plaintiff's complaint of this case from May 1, 1982 to March 31, 1983, which is clear on the record that the delivery date of the plaintiff's complaint of this case is 2,50% per annum under the Civil Act, and from April 1 of the next day to the full payment date under Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (the plaintiff's delivery date is reasonable to resist the non-performance of the plaintiff's complaint, but it is not accepted). Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case of this case is justified within the above recognition scope, and the remaining claim is dismissed, and the provisional execution order of Articles 96, 95, 99 and 99 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 96 of the Special Cases Concerning the Settlement, etc. of Legal Proceedings shall be applied.

Judges Lee Dong-soo (Presiding Judge)