Electricity bills have changed with those of my neighbors over the past 10 years… Even though I changed the meter, I don’t know about KEPCO.

“The electricity meter was installed interchangeably with my neighbor’s. “I need to settle the electricity bill with my neighbor A and come to an agreement.”

Mr. Kim, a man in his 30s living in Gyeongsang Province, heard this story from a Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) electrician early last month. Both Mr. Kim and Mr. A are the first residents who started living in the newly built villa around 2005 around the same time. Because of this, in the worst case scenario, there was a possibility that the two parties would have changed their electricity bills for 18 years.

The incident began around August last year when Mr. A filed a complaint with KEPCO, saying, “The electricity bill is too high compared to actual usage.” Afterwards, KEPCO confirmed through an electrician inspection that the meter was installed incorrectly. Normally, KEPCO manages meters, but the construction company that built the building is responsible for any errors made during the installation process. Mr. A visited the construction company that built the villa in 2005, but it had already closed down. The CEO of the construction company at the time, who was contacted after inquiries, simply repeated, “I don’t know about this.”

Meanwhile, KEPCO calculated that Mr. A paid 300,000 won more in electricity bills that Mr. Kim should have paid as a result of settling the electricity bills for the past 18 years, so it proposed an agreement in which Mr. Kim would return the amount to Mr. A.

At first glance, it seems like there is no problem with the proposal, but experts pointed out that there is a problem with it. Attorney Jeong Gu-seung of Illo Law Firm said, “Instead of the parties arguing over the difference, KEPCO should resolve the issue separately with each party.” He added, “KEPCO should return money to those who paid more taxes and pay more taxes.” “It is a general legal principle to collect money from those who paid less,” he explained.

So why did KEPCO make this proposal? Mr. Kim argued, “This is because if the parties reach an agreement, KEPCO can clear its hands without being entangled in a complicated situation.” It is more advantageous for KEPCO to settle the difference between the parties than to return the money to the parties and receive it back.

However, Mr. A rejected KEPCO’s agreement on the grounds that there was a problem with KEPCO’s calculation method. At the same time, the issue was raised about the fact that KEPCO had a history of replacing the meter in the villa in 2013. It is claimed that the meter was operating normally before, but when the meter was replaced in 2013, it was installed incorrectly and the electricity bill began to fluctuate.

Experts also agreed with Mr. A’s argument. A professor of electrical engineering at a university who requested anonymity said, “If the meter had been installed incorrectly since 2005 when the villa was built, this fact would have been clearly noticed during the meter replacement process in 2013.” He added, “KEPCO was charged for electricity due to negligence.” “It seems highly likely that has been reversed,” he said. If this is true, Mr. Kim and Mr. A’s meters were switched in 2013, not 2005, and the fault lies with KEPCO, not the construction company that built the villa.

According to Mr. Kim, KEPCO no longer mentioned ‘agreement between the parties’ from this point on. Mr. Kim said, “KEPCO changed its attitude when my neighbor started questioning me about my meter replacement history.” He added, “We reached an agreement where Mr. A would be refunded 3 million won worth of 10 years worth of unfair profits, and I would have to pay 1.8 million won worth of underclaims for 3 years.” “I said let’s see,” he said. When calculated from 2005, the power consumption of Mr. Kim and Mr. A is similar, so the difference is about 300,000 won, but when calculated from 2013, KEPCO explained that because Mr. Kim’s power consumption has increased significantly, the스포츠토토 amount of money that Mr. Kim must pay will also be greater than before. .

Mr. Kim, who was suddenly in a situation where he had to pay a large amount of money even though it was not his responsibility, had no choice but to cry and accept this offer. This was because they judged that if they rejected the agreement and entered into a lawsuit with KEPCO, the cost of hiring a lawyer would be higher. Mr. Kim said, “Whether it is KEPCO or a building construction company, if the meter installation is wrong, only the citizens who do not know anything will suffer damage.” He added, “Even if I feel unfair, there is nothing I can do, so I am trying to console myself by thinking that it is fortunate that the amount exceeds 1.8 million won. “He said.

Meanwhile, KEPCO said, “It seems that a misunderstanding occurred in the process of making various proposals to resolve civil complaints,” and added, “We will minimize the burden by having the parties pay the underclaim in installments.”

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *