[부당이득금반환][공1995.3.15.(988),1300]
The case holding that the successful bidder of the building is not fair to accept and pay the electricity and water rate in arrears or is not a juristic act contrary to social order.
The case holding that if a mutual savings and finance company at which a successful bidder of a building was awarded an agreement to take over the payment obligation of the overdue electricity and water supply charges of the company against the Korea Electric Power Corporation and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City on the part of obtaining approval for the resumption of the supply of electricity and water from the Korea Electric Power Corporation and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City upon the request of Korea Electric Power Corporation and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City with knowledge in advance that it is virtually inevitable to take over and pay the overdue electricity and water supply due to the suspension of the supply of electricity and water due to the failure to pay the electricity and water supply charges of the company which is the former owner of the building, if the former owner of the building was aware of the circumstances that it is in fact inevitable to take over and pay the overdue electricity and water supply charges of the company due to the suspension of the supply of electricity and water supply due to the failure to pay the electricity and water supply charges of the building, it cannot be viewed as an unfair legal act done in the light of social order and Korea Electric Power Corporation and the Korea Electric Power Corporation.
Articles 103 and 104 of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 90Da8992 delivered on October 23, 1990 (Gong1990, 2392), 90Da892 delivered on January 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 722), Supreme Court Decision 90Meu26560 delivered on March 27, 191 (Gong191, 1274)
Attorney Jeon Jong-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
1. Korea Electric Power Corporation and one other, Counsel for the defendant-appellant and one other;
Seoul Civil District Court Decision 94Na1073 delivered on May 6, 1994
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the building and its site of this case were owned by the non-party 2 company under the judgment of the court below, but they continued to pay electricity charges from February 1992, and from March 192, the defendant Korea Electric Power Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Corporation") to pay electricity charges. On May 4, 1992, the above building and its site were attached with a notice stating that "the non-party 2 may be supplied with electricity only if the non-party 3 would pay electricity charges," and the above building were registered as provisional attachment on June 8 of the same year, and the defendant 2 of this year (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant 2") also did not pay electricity charges to the non-party 3 company for the sale of the above building from October 2, 1992 to the non-party 3 company's disposal of the above building and the sale of the above building to the non-party 2 company's non-party 3 company's sale of water supply charges for the same reason.
In light of the above facts, it is sufficient to view that the Plaintiff, the former owner of the building of this case, was aware in advance of the fact that it is inevitable for the Plaintiff to acquire and pay the above delinquent charges due to the suspension of electricity and water supply due to the delinquency in payment of electricity and water supply, and thereafter, it is sufficient to view that the Plaintiff, at its request, agreed to accept the payment obligations of the electricity and water supply charges in arrears of the non-party company against the Defendants. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s payment of the overdue electricity and water supply charges in the course of transactions following the acquisition and disposal of the building of this case by the former owner of the building of this case can not be deemed to constitute an unfair juristic act conducted under the circumstances that led to the Defendants’ failure in payment of electricity and water supply, and the lower court did not err by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to legal acts in violation of social order or by failing to comply with the rules of experience (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Da65190, Mar. 27, 1991).
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who is the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)