Whether an agreement between the construction contractor and the Korea Electric Power Corporation constitutes an unfair legal act upon which the contractor purchased a factory from the non-party bank on condition that the former owner take over the delinquent electrical charges (negative)

If the buyer of the factory purchased the factory of this case on the condition that the buyer takes over the debt with the knowledge of the fact that the former owner’s default electrical charges at the time of the sales contract for the factory with the non-party bank that sold the factory of this case at the auction, even though the former owner’s default electrical charges were not of the nature to pay the former owner’s delinquent electrical charges, and even if the former owner’s default electrical charges were to be paid without paying them, it cannot be deemed that the payment agreement on the above electrical charges for the construction work of this case was against the buyer’s will and constitutes a juristic act that has considerably lost fairness.

Articles 104 and 453 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 16454 decided Oct. 24, 1988 (Gong1990, 871) (Gong1987, 427) (Gong1988, 277) and 88Da2009 decided Dec. 8, 1987 (Gong198, 843) (Gong198, 890, 890, 890, 89, 1282, 1299 (Gong132, 1990, 193, 190, 1990, 190, 1943, 190, 190, 190, 199, 205, 199, 205, 190, 199, 205, 199, 190, 205, 190, 1990

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Korea Electric Power Corporation’s Attorney Park Jae-hoon

Daegu High Court Decision 88Na5199 delivered on February 23, 1989

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

The judgment of the court below held that the plaintiff paid 28,026,190 won to the defendant who was the former owner of the factory of this case for the overdue electricity charges of the non-party 28,026,190 won, which the plaintiff purchased and delivered the factory of this case and intended to operate the factory by newly employing about 40 employees. However, the defendant's liability for the electricity charges under Articles 11 and 14 of the Electricity Supply Regulations is not extinguished even after the termination of the supply contract, and if there is a change in the electricity expropriation price due to sale, inheritance, or other reasons, new accommodation shall succeed to the rights and obligations related to the use of electricity to the defendant of the former owner of the factory of this case. Thus, the plaintiff refused to supply electricity without paying the overdue electricity charges of the above non-party 2, who was the former owner of the factory of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's failure to purchase a large amount of electricity and caused enormous damages to the plaintiff due to the failure to pay the electricity charges to the plaintiff within 31,000.

However, according to the court below's finding on the grounds that the plaintiff acquired the factory of this case and paid the delinquent electricity charges of the former owner to the defendant, the non-party new owner of the factory of this case failed to pay 28,026,190 won, which was the total electricity charges of June 8, 1984 when the former owner of the factory of this case owned the factory of this case, and the supply of electricity to the factory of this case was suspended from the defendant on December 6, 1984, and the non-party Industrial Bank of Korea transferred them to the plaintiff after the successful bid. The defendant knew that the plaintiff had been aware that the above bank of this case's sales contract of this case's new electricity sales contract of this case was the purchase and sale contract of this case before the plaintiff purchased the factory of this case from the above Industrial Bank of Korea, and that the plaintiff was aware that the above new electricity sales contract of this case's previous purchase and sale contract of this case's new electricity.

Therefore, even if the Plaintiff’s payment of the instant overdue electricity charges is not of the nature that the Plaintiff would have to pay from the beginning, but in a situation where the Plaintiff could not receive power supply from the Defendant without paying such charges, if the Plaintiff purchased the instant plant with the intent to pay the instant overdue electricity charges under the same circumstances as the above recognition, it cannot be deemed that the agreement with the Defendant on the payment of the said overdue electricity charges was against the Plaintiff’s will (whether its legal effect remains effective or not) and constitutes a juristic act that has considerably lost fairness with gresh, rash, and inexperience.

The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to unfair legal acts, and this constitutes Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Therefore, without determining the remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the defendant among the judgment below is reversed and remanded to the Daegu High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)