(영문) 제주지방법원 2020.10.14 2019나15328

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 제주지방법원 2020.10.14 2019나15328

사용료

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. On March 30, 2015, the Defendant leased the instant building D ground (hereinafter “instant building”) from Jeju-si, Jeju-si, and entered into a contract on electric use of the instant building with the Plaintiff on April 13, 2015. From May 15, 2015, the Defendant operated a hotel business with the name of E hotel in the instant building.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s written application for the change of the electric use contract (electric use contract) includes the following provisions: “I agree to comply with the terms and conditions of the electricity supply of the Plaintiff and apply for the change of the electric use as above,” and “I will apply for the change of the electric use in the actual user’s name, and notify the change within 14 days if the contractor is changed due to sale (lease).” The Plaintiff’s basic terms and conditions of the supply include “I will notify the Plaintiff within 14 days if the electric user is changed, the new customer and the previous customer shall be notified to the Plaintiff and the new customer shall file an application for the change of the contractor of the electric use.”

On October 5, 2015, the Defendant terminated the above hotel business, and subleted the instant building to the F Tourer, and the nominal owner of the electric utility contract did not change.

The electricity fee for the electricity used in the instant building under the name of the Defendant was not paid from March 2018, and the contract for the electrical use under the Defendant’s name was terminated on June 5, 2018, and the unpaid electricity fee is KRW 3,173,560.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. As long as the Plaintiff did not notify the Plaintiff of the change to the consumers of the instant building, the former contractor is still the Defendant in relation to the Plaintiff, regardless of who is the actual user.

Accordingly, the defendant is entitled to pay unpaid electricity charges.

(b).

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2018.11.27 2018가단109424

-부산지방법원서부지원 2019.08.30 2018가단9812

-수원지방법원 2016.11.10 2015가단136070

-대전지방법원 2017.08.24 2016가단220737

-의정부지방법원 2020.01.16 2019나203669