(a) Whether the regulations on the supply of electricity by the Korea Electric Power Corporation are effective;

(b) A case that an agreement made between the former and the latter to pay delinquent electricity rates is null and void as an unfair legal act;

(c) In concluding a sales contract, the interpretation of the agreement that the obligation to pay electricity charges, etc. for the subject matter of sale accrued prior to the conclusion of the contract is liquidated at the purchaser’s expense and the requirements for

A. The rules on the supply of electricity to the Korea Electric Power Corporation, even though the Korea Electric Power Corporation, which is an operator of the electric utility under Article 15 of the Electric Utility Act, determines matters concerning the electricity charges and other supply terms with the approval of the Minister of Power and Resources, is merely merely a provision for convenience in handling the affairs of the Korea Electric Power Corporation, and is not a legal effect with respect to general binding rules on the people, and is only effective as to whether the Korea Electric Power Corporation enters into

(b) The case holding that an agreement entered into with the previous inmate to pay delinquent electricity rates is null and void as an unfair legal act;

C. In general, in concluding a sales contract, the agreement should be interpreted to the effect that the seller is liquidated at the buyer’s expense on the premise that the seller is obligated to pay electricity charges, etc. for the subject matter of sale arising prior to the conclusion of the contract. Moreover, the agreement that the seller is obligated to pay electricity charges, etc. to a third party shall belong to this example in light of the general transaction concept. Thus, in order to recognize such agreement, it should be interpreted as a contract for the third party merely because there is a request from the seller to collect the overdue electricity charges, etc. arising from the sale of a certain real estate.

A. Article 105(b) of the Civil Act; Article 104(c) of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2094 Decided February 10, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 83Meu893 Decided December 27, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2094 Decided February 10, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2857 Decided August 18, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2009 Decided December 8, 1987

Large Steel Co., Ltd.

Korea Electric Power Corporation et al., Counsel for defendant

Daegu High Court Decision 87Na546 delivered on November 19, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the first and second points:

Although the provision on the supply of electricity by Defendant Corporation provides for the matters concerning the electricity charges and other supply terms with the approval of the chief of the power resources department under Article 15 of the Electric Utility Act, it is merely a provision for the convenience of the execution of the work by Defendant Corporation, and it is not a valid law with general binding power to the public, and it is the opinion of the party members that the agreement with the Defendant on the supply of electricity or the agreement on the application of the provision is only effective (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Meu893, Dec. 27, 1983; 86Meu2094, Feb. 10, 1987).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the plaintiff purchased the above factory of this case, which was originally owned by the non-party Samsung Steel Co., Ltd. from the non-party commercial bank, and tried to operate a factory in the auction procedure, the court below rejected the plaintiff's supply of electricity charges to the non-party 1, who agreed to the above non-party 1, and did not pay the above non-party 1,774,710 won in arrears at the time of the operation of the factory of this case, on the ground of the defendant's supply provision that the non-party 1, an exclusive supplier of electricity, would succeed to the above non-party 1's obligation to pay the above non-party 1's overdue electricity charges to the non-party 1, and the above non-party 1, who agreed to pay the above non-party 1's overdue electricity charges to the non-party 1, as well as to pay the above non-party 1's new overdue electricity charges to the above non-party 1, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's agreed to the above provision of electricity supply charges.

2. On the third ground for appeal

In general, in the conclusion of a sales contract, if the seller agrees to liquidate the obligation of the buyer to pay the electricity charges, etc. for the subject matter of sale which occurred prior to the conclusion of the contract, it is reasonable to interpret the seller to the effect that the seller is liable to pay the electricity charges, etc. at the buyer’s expense, and the seller agrees to pay the buyer the electricity charges, etc. which the seller does not have any obligation to pay to the third party, in light of the general transaction concept, such an agreement constitutes an example. Thus, in order to recognize such an agreement, considering all circumstances such as the motive and background of the agreement, the status and interest of the parties (the relationship between the seller and the third party, the relationship between the seller and the third party, etc.), and transaction practices, the seller is not obligated to pay the buyer the electricity charges, etc., but there should be special circumstances to deem that the third party was able to bear the burden to the buyer. However, it cannot be interpreted as a contract for the third party merely because there was a request for cooperation from the buyer for the collection of the electricity charges, etc.

Therefore, the court below, prior to the conclusion of the sales contract between the plaintiff and the non-party Korean commercial bank, notified the above bank of the defendant's power supply regulations on the succession of delinquent electricity charges to the above bank prior to the conclusion of the sales contract for the factory of this case, and sent a cooperation letter demanding the purchaser to pay delinquent electricity charges for the factory of this case. After that, the plaintiff purchased the factory of this case and agreed to the effect that the above bank would bear not only after the conclusion of the contract but also before the conclusion of the contract, the plaintiff's acceptance of the contract where the Korean commercial bank, the seller, has the responsibility to pay delinquent electricity charges, etc. against the defendant. Further, the above bank is not only the successful bidder of the factory of this case, and it is not a legal position to succeed to the non-party Korean Steel Co., Ltd.'s obligation to pay delinquent electricity charges, but also it is reasonable to see that the plaintiff and the above third party's non-party stock company's non-party corporation's obligation to assume the above liability as the beneficiary of the contract with the above third party.

3. Accordingly, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yellow-il (Presiding Justice)