1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 131,65,66 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from August 22, 2015 to May 25, 2017.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, since the reasoning of this court's explanation is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance other than that of the court of first instance, the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act cites it as it is in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Act.

[3] The defendant asserts that the penalty under the electricity supply terms and conditions shall be reduced excessively because of the excessive penalty. It is reasonable to view that the penalty under the electricity supply terms and conditions has the nature of both the liquidated damages and the penalty for breach of contract. However, even if the penalty has the nature of the liquidated damages and the penalty for breach of contract, if the estimated amount of damages is unreasonably excessive within the scope of the estimated amount of damages, the court may reduce the estimated amount of damages. However, the above facts are as follows: (a) it was difficult to recognize that the facilities of this case were excluded from the application of industrial power from December 31, 2008 by the revision of the Korea Manpower Agency Act; (b) it was difficult to recognize that the business type was changed; (c) the defendant did not have unlawfully used the electricity; (d) it appears that the plaintiff did not faithfully used the electricity; (e) it appears that the defendant did not faithfully reduce the amount of the penalty for breach of contract under the electricity supply terms and conditions of 10%, 10% of the total amount of damages; and (e) 1818% of the penalty for breach of contract at the plaintiff's.