logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원영월지원 2014.12.11 2014가합156
부당이득금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company running casino, tourist hotel business, sports facility business, etc. established through a special Act to facilitate the development of abandoned mine areas. The Plaintiff is a limited partnership company established by a gas supplier in combination to supply gas necessary for operation, such as the Defendant’s casino, hotel, skiing ground, etc. located in abandoned mine areas.

B. Around February 20, 2003, the Defendant entered into a contract for supply of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant contract”), and began to be supplied with gas necessary for the operation of the place of business, such as casino, hotel, skiing ground, etc. from March 5, 2003. On February 19, 2014, the Defendant continued to be supplied with gas until the termination of the instant contract until the expiration of the period.

C. The Plaintiff supplied liquid gas to the Defendant as a weight unit. The Defendant, as a fire engine installed in a gas storage facility, saved liquid gas, and maintained a certain pressure (7,000mH20) with a static air-conditioning gas, and supplied it to the gas source through a gas pipe.

The Defendant measured the gas consumption of boiler 1 through 4 (hereinafter “instant boiler”) installed in a hotel from March 2003 to February 2014 by the unit of capacity (in the case of calculating the gas consumption premised on the gas consumption measured with a general measuring instrument from September 201 to December 201), and the gas consumption measured with a general measuring instrument (in the case of the gas consumption measured with a general measuring instrument, from September 201 to December 201, the Defendant calculated the gas price on the premise of the gas consumption measured with a general measuring instrument), and the Plaintiff paid the gas price calculated on the basis of the quantity of gas consumption and the unit of gas sale per cubic meter in the standard condition (standard condition) of the gas consumption in the state of “00mH2O”, which was measured with a general measuring instrument (7,000mH2O).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 16, and Eul evidence 1 are numbers.

arrow