Whether an agreement between a person who purchased a factory with knowledge of the existence of an obligation of the former owner for the overdue electricity charges and then purchased the factory constitutes an unfair legal act in which the agreement to pay the overdue electricity charges to Korea Electric Power Corporation

Even if a bank that sold a factory upon the successful bid did not notify a purchaser of the overdue electricity charges, but did not deduct the overdue electricity charges from the sales price, it should be deemed that the above factory was purchased based on the determination that if the former owner knowingly acquired the overdue electricity charges from the bank when the former owner purchased the factory, it would be favorable to purchase the factory even if the former owner paid the overdue electricity charges. Thus, even if the former owner agreed to pay the overdue electricity charges between the former and the Korea Electric Power Corporation, barring special circumstances, it cannot be readily concluded that it was an unfair legal act that was concluded without any delay in the supply of electricity, barring special circumstances.

Article 104 of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee (Law No. 1988, 8454, Oct. 24, 1989 (Gong1989, 1749), 88Da19493, Mar. 9, 1990 (Gong190, 871, April 24, 1990) (Gong1990, 132), 199, 199 for Defendant-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-

Attorney Lee Dong-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korea Electric Power Corporation (Attorney Lee Byung-il, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 88Na43383 delivered on August 25, 1989

The original judgment shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment, the above non-party company was owned by the non-party 1 company, and the non-party 1 company agreed to pay the above charges to the defendant for the supply of electricity for the above factory from July 1985 to September 1985, the supply of electricity for the above factory was suspended from around September 1985. The non-party 2 company requested voluntary auction on September 18, 1985 based on the right to collateral security established in the factory and applied for the above auction procedure to the defendant on July 14, 1986. Since the non-party 516,200,00,00 won for the above factory supply for the above factory, and the above non-party 1 company agreed to pay the above charges to the defendant for the supply of electricity to the non-party 1 company in arrears for the purpose of taking over the above new charges for the supply of electricity for the non-party 1 company in arrears and the new charges for the supply of electricity for the non-party 1 company in arrears.

However, according to the records, the plaintiff purchased electricity from the defendant again in order to operate the factory when the former owner's failure to pay electricity was already suspended due to the former owner's failure to pay electricity, and even if there was no room for the latter's failure to pay electricity to the non-party bank at the time, the plaintiff knew that the non-party bank purchased the above factory from the non-party bank under the condition that the plaintiff would bear not only the portion after the conclusion of the contract but also the amount of electricity charges, such as electricity charges for the factory of this case after the conclusion of the contract, although the non-party bank did not notify of the overdue electricity charges for the factory of this case and did not inform the non-party bank of the overdue electricity charges for the purchase of the factory of this case from the non-party bank, the plaintiff would be deemed to have purchased the above factory in order to purchase the factory of this case even if the former owner, who was not the non-party bank, was aware of the overdue electricity charges for the defendant. Accordingly, even if the plaintiff agreed to pay the above charges between the defendant and the non-party, the plaintiff's failure to pay electricity.

Nevertheless, the court below's decision that the above agreement on the payment of the electricity charges in arrears was a juristic act which has considerably lost fairness due to the plaintiff's gambling, rashness, or inexperience, was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to unfair legal acts unless it violates the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the unfair

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

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)