[부당이득금반환][공1994.10.15.(978),2606]
Interpretation of an agreement under which the purchaser bears the obligation, such as overdue electricity charges, at the time of concluding a sales contract;
In the conclusion of a sales contract, if the parties agree to liquidate the obligation, such as electricity charges, for the subject matter of sale and purchase before the conclusion of the contract, at the buyer’s expense, it is reasonable to interpret that the seller is liquidated the obligation at the buyer’s expense on the premise that the seller is liable to pay electricity charges, etc. In addition, the agreement that the seller agrees to pay the buyer the obligation not to pay to the buyer to the third party constitutes an example of the general transaction concept. Therefore, in order to interpret such an agreement as above, there should be special circumstances to deem that the parties were to bear the burden on the buyer, in light of all the circumstances such as motive and circumstance leading up to such agreement, status and interest of the parties (the seller and the buyer, the relationship between the seller and the third party, etc.), and transaction practices.
Articles 105 and 563 of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 88Da2857 Decided August 18, 1987 (Gong1987, 1454) decided April 12, 1988 (Gong1988, 843)
Attorney Oh Jeong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee-appellant
Korea Electric Power Corporation (Attorney Kim Sung-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Seoul Civil District Court Decision 93Na31787 delivered on November 23, 1993
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
In general, in the conclusion of a sales contract, if the parties agree to liquidate the obligation of the seller for the subject matter of sale, such as the electricity fee, etc., which occurred before the conclusion of the contract, at the buyer's expense, it is reasonable to interpret the seller's obligation to liquidate the obligation at the buyer's expense on the premise that the seller is obligated to pay the electricity fee, etc., and the seller's agreement to pay the buyer for the obligation that the seller does not have to pay to the third party belongs to the case of a general transaction concept. Thus, in order to interpret such an agreement as mentioned above, there should be special circumstances to deem that in light of all circumstances such as the motive and circumstance leading up to such agreement, the status and interest of the parties (the relationship between the seller and the third party, the compensation relationship between the seller and the third party, etc.), and the transaction practice, the parties' intent was to bear the burden on the buyer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Da22, Apr. 12,
In the same purport, the court below, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, attached a notice to the effect that the defendant can reuse electricity only when the above electricity charges were paid on the wall of the building of this case before the conclusion of the sales contract for the factory of this case between the plaintiff and the non-party 1 bank. On the other hand, when disposing of the factory of this case, the non-party 2,936,860, which is the owner of the above factory, notified the purchaser of the fact that the non-party 2, who is the owner of the above factory, is able to resume the supply of electricity only when the purchaser is able to pay the electricity charges in arrears in accordance with the rules on the supply of electricity, and that the defendant notified the defendant of the fact that the non-party 2, who is the owner of the above factory of the fact that the non-party 1,000, did not bear the duty to pay the above charges in arrears, and therefore, it cannot be viewed that there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles that the plaintiff's duty to pay the above charges in arrears.
All arguments are without merit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)