logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원원주지원 2016.09.07 2016가단31731
사용료
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant, along with B, received electricity from the Plaintiff at the original city C (hereinafter “instant domicile”) and did not pay the said fees, while paying the said fees. The Plaintiff asserts that, from July 2015 to November 2015, the sum of the electricity rates of KRW 25,338,000 and the delay damages therefrom were to be paid.

According to Gap evidence No. 5-2, it is recognized that the defendant prepared a letter to the effect that he would pay 26,774,840 won (from September 2014 to November 2014) used at the domicile of this case and 43 million won as security deposit, on December 19, 2014.

However, according to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, according to the customer information details managed by the plaintiff, the customer who uses electricity at the address of this case is indicated as "(State)D". On June 10, 2014, E Co., Ltd. leased a building on the ground of nine parcels, other than the address of this case, as of October 28, 2015 during the lease term, and E Co., Ltd., on July 15, 2015, sent a public notice to the effect that it would demand the plaintiff to maintain the contract for the supply of electricity.

According to the above facts, the party to the electricity supply contract used at the address of this case is not the defendant, and it is reasonable to view that E was supplied with electricity from the plaintiff during the above lease period and used it actually.

Ultimately, the Defendant’s written statement of December 19, 2014, which was recognized earlier, cannot be deemed to have the Defendant’s obligation to pay the electric charges supplied to the instant domicile from July 2015 to November 201 of the same year, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow