beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
In this part of the basic facts, this court's reasoning is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance.
The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant entered into the instant electricity use contract with the Plaintiff on the basis of the contract amount of 30,000 kW based on the terms and conditions of the Plaintiff’s electricity supply and its enforcement rules, and thus, the Defendant should be supplied with electricity using only one alterr.
In order for the Defendant to use two different voltages with respect to the instant power plant, two different voltages can not be used simultaneously in accordance with Article 6 of the Electric Power Use Agreement and any other terms and conditions of the instant electric power plant, which must be installed.
However, the Defendant violated the electric utility contract of this case by receiving electricity from the Plaintiff by simultaneously using two different voltages without the aforementioned seal devices.
The Defendant installed 30,000ccVA capacity in the instant power plant and used 30,000 VA capacity at the same time. Pursuant to Article 20(2) of the Plaintiff’s terms and conditions of the electricity supply, the contract power should be 60,00 kilograms on the basis of the sum of the two different voltages.
Therefore, pursuant to Article 44(1) of the former Terms and Conditions of Supply, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff penalty of up to two times the electricity rates evaded by the Defendant from December 2, 2010 to January 2014 (contract fees based on contractual power calculated appropriately - Defendant’s overdue charge) and damages for delay.
With knowledge that the Defendant had two water-only transformers installed at the instant power plant, the Plaintiff entered into the agreement on the electric use of the instant electric power plant with the Defendant by setting the contract power to 30,000 kilograms, based on the alterr capacity per unit, with the Defendant as 30,000 kilograms.
And the plaintiff.