logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2021.01.21 2020가합522
전기사용계약해지 취소
Text

All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) newly built AS building, an aggregate building located in Pyeongtaek-si (hereinafter “instant building”) around 2014.

Since then, some of the stores, which are sections for exclusive use of the building of this case, have been sold in lots, each of which acquired ownership, and the remaining stores, which have not been sold, have been directly used or leased by B while owning them.

2) The Plaintiff is a company that manages the instant building from around November 2019.

B. On September 29, 2014, B entered into an electricity use agreement with the Defendant on the entire building of the instant building (hereinafter “instant contract”). From that time, the Defendant supplied electricity to the instant building, and issued a written demand for electricity charges against B according to the electric consumption of the entire building of the instant building. The former manager of the instant building or the Plaintiff received electricity charges from the owner or lessee of each shop in proportion to the electric consumption of each shop.

(c)

From February 2020 to May 2020, the Defendant notified B of the fact that “In the event that the payment of KRW 17,366,850, the aggregate of the electricity rates from February 13, 2020 to May 2020, the Defendant would be expected to terminate the instant contract on June 13, 2020,” and that “the unpaid electricity rates would be paid.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The users of each shop of the instant building asserted by the Plaintiff were fully paying the electricity charges according to the volume of electricity used by each shop. However, the users of the store stated in the purport of the conjunctive claim, including B, did not pay the electricity charges properly, and the payment of the electricity charges supplied to the entire building of the instant building was overdue.

arrow