1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant did not pay KRW 128,084,030 in total, including KRW 244,610, commercial high voltage electricity charges of KRW 118,49,510, commercial high voltage electricity charges of KRW 118,49,510, and high voltage electricity charges of agricultural use of KRW 9,339,910.

The defendant does not pay the amount of the contract on the use of electricity with the plaintiff. Since the above amount of the money was unjustly gained by unjust enrichment even though it was not a family contract, the defendant shall seek the return of the equivalent amount of the money.

2. Determination

A. There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract on the use of electricity between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no evidence to prove that they entered into a contract on the use of electricity between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Defendant Company B (hereinafter “B”) solely with the statement of evidence Nos. 7, 9, and 10 (including virtual numbers). It cannot be deemed that the contract acquisition or the assumption of obligation was made.

B. Fact that there is no dispute between the parties to the obligation to return unjust enrichment between the defendant and the party to the obligation to return unjust enrichment, the statement in Gap evidence 4-3, Gap evidence 5-1, Gap evidence 5-7, Gap evidence 9-1 and Eul evidence 9-2, and the witness Eul's testimony in the witness Eul's testimony to the purport that the defendant, the actual employer, should pay the electricity fee, and thus, it is not a testimony to the effect that the above fact is opposed to

In full view of the purport of the arguments, the defendant used electricity with the consent of the above use of electricity from B (Representative Director D) who entered into a contract on the electricity used by the plaintiff, Chungcheong-gun A (B) (the factory), and the defendant was a claim against B, and it can be acknowledged that D had the defendant use electricity with the factory of B in lieu of the claim against the defendant.

If the facts are the same as above, the Defendant’s electric use was conducted with the consent of B which entered into a contract for electric use with the Plaintiff, and it cannot be deemed that it was done without any legal basis.

The plaintiff.