According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected that the above factories were owned by the non-party 1,50,811,810 won of the above factories, and the supply of electricity to the above factories was suspended since February 28, 1989. The plaintiff was awarded a bid price of the above factories in the voluntary auction procedure for the factory of March 14, 1989 and requested the supply of electricity to the defendant, on the ground that the above factories were owned by the non-party 2,501,300 won, and the defendant did not supply electricity without paying the above overdue electricity charges on the ground of the defendant's supply provision that the above overdue electricity charges are succeeded to new accommodation, and that the plaintiff could not pay the above overdue electricity charges if the above factories were not operated by large amount of factories, the above non-party 1 was under circumstances to suffer enormous damages, and that the plaintiff could not pay the above overdue electricity charges to the non-party 1,500,000 won due to the lack of any other electricity charges from the defendant 1, who was supplied with the above electricity charges.

However, in the instant case, if the Plaintiff knocked up the auction with the knowledge of the existence of the overdue electricity charges by the former owner in acquiring the factory of this case, it shall be deemed that the succession to the electricity charges is inevitable for the operation of the factory (in addition to whether there is the obligation to succeed thereto), and if the Plaintiff paid the overdue electricity charges to the Defendant after the successful bid, it shall not be deemed an unfair act using the erogating state of the agreement, or an act by coercion of the Defendant, unless there are any other special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 89Meu3122, Jun. 22, 1990, etc.). The lower court seems to have made the above decision on the premise that the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the electricity charges by the former expropriation (the former owner) had not been known prior to the acquisition of the factory of this case.

However, even if the testimony of the first instance court Kim Young-young adopted by the court below was based on the testimony of the non-party company Kim Young-young, the plaintiff was already aware of the failure to pay the electricity charges of the non-party company, which was previously expropriated in November 1, 1989, and according to the records, the plaintiff could also look at the fact that the plaintiff had been engaged in the production business in the same area as the above non-party company, and the plaintiff was never aware of the status of the factory operation at the time. According to the evidence of the court below's decision which rejected the court below's unanimous rejection, the defendant could not be viewed as being aware that the non-party company's failure to pay the electricity charges of this case could not be paid the above non-party company's non-party company's failure to pay the electricity charges of this case after the commencement of the auction, and the provisional attachment order for the factory building of this case was suspended after the commencement of the auction. Accordingly, even if the plaintiff's failure to pay the electricity charges of this case was known to the court below.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence and the legal principles as to the declaration of intention by coercion.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)