1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Facts of premise;

A. On June 10, 2011, the Plaintiff leased No. 101 of the Seoul Jung-gu C Building 101 from B, and resided therein, and the said building was a multi-family house, and the Plaintiff has paid the electricity charge jointly imposed with other two households.

B. However, as a dispute over the apportionment of electricity charges, the Plaintiff installed a single electrical measuring instrument used only by the Plaintiff on October 10, 201, and around November 8, 2011, the Plaintiff’s application for the change of the use of the individual electricity was received from the Defendant.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant imposed electricity charges on the basis of the Plaintiff’s result of inspection of the single electrical measuring instruments, and the Plaintiff has paid electricity charges accordingly.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. 판단 원고는, 원고가 사무실을 출근하던 2011. 6. 11.~2013. 5. 31.에는 봄, 가을(＝4~6, 10~12월) 월 평균 29.8kW , 여름(＝7~9월) 월 평균 36.8kW , 겨울(＝1~3월) 월 평균 38.8kW 의 전기를 사용하였고, 사무실을 폐쇄하고 재택하던 2013. 6. 1.~2015. 6. 5.에는 봄 월 평균 72.3kW , 여름 월 79.3kW , 겨울 118.5kW 를 사용하였는바, 2011. 10.~2014. 12. 기간 위와 같은 월 평균 전기사용량을 기준으로 계산한 원고의 실제 전기사용량 2,225.3kW 는 같은 기간 피고의 검침량 6,744kW 의 33% 정도에 불과하다면서, 원고가 납부한 865,640원 중 원고의 실제 전기사용량인 1/3에 상응한 금액을 제외한 나머지 577,100원[≒865,640원×(1-1/3)]은 부당이득으로 반환하여야 한다고 주장한다.

However, the Defendant’s imposition and collection of electric charges are based on the results of the inspection of the electric measuring instruments, while the amount of electric consumption claimed by the Plaintiff is limited to the estimates calculated on the basis of the rated consumption power indicated in the Electric Appliances Safety Control Act, the marking of the KS Standards, and the labeling of safety certification.