1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff applied for the supply of electricity to the defendant after the successful bid of 489,50,000 won for the auction procedure for the factory building and site of this case on October 20, 198, but the defendant refused to pay the electricity charges of 5,708,820 won in arrears until April 198 on the ground that he succeeded to the plaintiff who was a new inmate under the Rules of the Electricity Supply and Electricity Supply Act. The plaintiff paid the above overdue electricity charges to the plaintiff on December 2, 198 in order to operate the facilities and equipment in the factory building of this case. The court below determined that the plaintiff's payment of the above overdue electricity charges to the plaintiff from the 6th of the same month without any legal reasons that the plaintiff suffered heavy damages due to the plaintiff's failure to pay electricity from the exclusive supplier of electricity, which caused the plaintiff's failure to pay the above overdue electricity, and therefore, the defendant's failure to pay the above overdue electricity charges to the plaintiff.

2. However, according to the witness evidence Nos. 3 without dispute in the establishment and witness testimony of the court of first instance who did not reject by the court below, when applying for auction against the Korea Exchange Bank, the mortgagee of the factory building of this case, the defendant Corporation requested the successful bidder to inform him of the existence of overdue electricity charges and the impossibility of receiving the supply of electricity unless the successful bidder pays the overdue electricity charges. On Apr. 8, 1987, the defendant knew that the above bank filed a request for auction, and attached a notice board to publicly announce the existence of the above overdue electricity charges liability and the fact that the new purchaser of the above factory could not receive the supply of electricity if he did not pay the overdue electricity charges. Thus, if the plaintiff added the above facts that the former owner was aware of the suspension of the supply of the above factory building and the site of this case at the time of the successful bid, it can be presumed that the above factory building and site of this case can be presumed that the former owner's above overdue electricity charges can only be paid. Thus, the plaintiff's act cannot be seen to have been caused enormous damages to the above defendant.

Ultimately, the court below's determination of evidence is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle of unfair conduct, and thus, it is reasonable to discuss this point.

3. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)