[Defendant-Appellant-Appellee] Hywkex Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Changjin-jin, Attorney Song Jae-soo,

Korea Electric Power Corporation (Law Firm Lee & Lee, Attorneys Seo-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

March 30, 2016

Gwangju District Court Decision 2015Da502317 Decided July 2, 2015

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s liability for the attached electrical charges against the Defendant does not exist in excess of 22,960,873 won (excluding value-added tax, electricity fund, late payment charge, and additional charge).

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. One-half of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. It is confirmed that there is no liability of the plaintiff for the amount of electricity charges of KRW 45,921,746 to the defendant.

1. The Plaintiff’s occurrence of electric utility charges;

According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and arguments, the plaintiff supplied electricity from around May 2012 to the defendant with a contract power of 250km, and around April 2013 to the defendant applied for the supply of electricity with a contract power of 400km from the contract power to the defendant. According to the defendant's provision, the plaintiff supplied electricity with a contract power of 40km from April 30 to August 22, 2014 (hereinafter "the period in this case"), the plaintiff calculated the above contract power power rate of 40km to the defendant's 40km to the above 460km to the contract power rate of 360kg to the defendant's 462 times to the above contract power rate of 40km to the defendant's 464 times to the above contract power of 400km to the defendant's 204 times to the defendant's 4664 times to the above contract power rate of this case.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's defense

A. The Plaintiff had a duty to explain to the Plaintiff the imposition system of the charge that “If the contractual power is supplied with the electricity of 250kW, and 400kW, the said electricity would be applied to the 240-hour meter, which would be subject to 360 times as much as the 360-hour meter, and the electricity would be at fault.” However, the Plaintiff was liable to additionally pay the electricity fee of 45,921,746 won by failing to perform the said duty, due to the Plaintiff’s loss of the opportunity to be subject to the electricity of the water distribution facilities by again lowering the power of the water distribution facilities, thereby making the Plaintiff liable for additional payment of the electricity fee of 45,921,746 won. Therefore, the Plaintiff

However, in light of the fact that the obligation to specify and deliver the terms and conditions of the electricity business is exempted (see Article 3(2)2 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act), and that there is an interest in using a lot of electricity for the same time when the electricity with a high contract power is supplied, and that the electricity fee can be mistaken in comparison with it is a matter that can be anticipated to a certain extent, it is difficult to view that the Defendant had the obligation to explain to the Plaintiff the above content of the fee imposition system, and therefore, the aforementioned defense is rejected.

B. The plaintiff also raises an objection to the purport that the above difference payment request of the defendant violates the good faith principle. The above paragraph (1) contains the following circumstances, i.e., the defendant's erroneous application of the meter distribution system to the plaintiff was caused by mistake in the employee in charge of the defendant, and no circumstance is found that the plaintiff caused the error. ② The defendant imposed the electricity charge calculated for one year and four months or the plaintiff, and the plaintiff had no choice but to trust the electricity charge imposed by the defendant who is an exclusive supplier of the power. ③ The plaintiff was notified of the additional payment of the electricity charge and did not have to reduce the power of the water distribution system from 400 km to 350 km, and it was difficult to view that the above difference between the contract power generation and the defendant had been applied for the reduction of the above 240 km electricity charge to the plaintiff, and the defendant did not have been negligent in paying the electricity charge to the plaintiff within the extent that it would have been unreasonable for the plaintiff to have been found that it did not go against the above principle of equity.

3. Conclusion

The Plaintiff’s liability for the attached electrical charges against the Defendant (i.e., KRW 45,921,746 ± 2) did not exceed the above KRW 22,960,873 (i.e., KRW 45,921,746 ± 2), and there is a benefit to

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the extent of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since part of the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the plaintiff's appeal is partially accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Choi Young-Nam (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) means electrical charges, other than value-added tax, electric funds, arrears and additional charges.