1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

1. The court of first instance admitting the evidence submitted to this court by the court of first instance citing the judgment of the court of first instance admitting the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance admitting the evidence as legitimate, and there is no error as alleged in the grounds for appeal by the

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for adding the following additional judgments following the first instance judgment, which is the first instance court’s first instance judgment following the second instance judgment. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Additional determination (Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc. as to the part on the main claim)

A. The Defendant paid the electricity charges of KRW 20,369,10 on November 3, 2015 to the Defendant, and KRW 31,862,62,620 on November 16, 2015, which is the date of termination of the instant lease agreement. The Plaintiff considered that the electricity charges collected by the Defendant are excessive and unreasonable, and the Plaintiff paid the electricity charges in arrears at each of the above times, even though having failed to pay it, it is asserted that the Plaintiff could not claim the return of the electricity charges to the Defendant on the basis of free will, even though he was aware that the Plaintiff did not have any obligation.

On the other hand, Article 742 of the Civil Code provides for the repayment of non-debted debt shall apply to the case where the person performing the obligation knows that he did not have any obligation, regardless of whether there was any negligence, and the burden of proving that the person performing the obligation knew that he did not have any obligation is the part of denying the right to claim the return.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da68237 Decided November 15, 2012). The health stand in the instant case and the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, i.e., the Plaintiff, at the time of the termination of the agreement on the lease contract of the instant store ( November 16, 2015), listen to the fact that electricity charges are too high from the relative of distribution business during the process of claiming electricity charges from the Defendant, and thereafter, the Korea Electric Power Corporation imposed on the “total building of the instant building.”