In concluding a sales contract, the benefits of the agreement that the obligation to pay electricity fees, etc. for the subject matter of sale accrued prior to the conclusion of the contract shall be liquidated at the purchaser's expense and the requirements for

In general, in the conclusion of a sales contract, if the parties agree to liquidate their obligations, such as electricity charges, etc. for the subject matter of sale that occurred prior to the conclusion of the contract, at the buyer's expense, it is reasonable to interpret the seller's obligation to liquidate their obligations at the buyer's expense on the premise that the seller is liable to pay the electricity charges, etc., and the seller's agreement to pay the electricity charges, etc. which the seller has not any obligation to pay to the third party belongs to this example in light of the general transaction concept. Therefore, in order to recognize such an agreement, there should be special circumstances to deem that the parties' intent is not obligated to pay to the buyer, but the parties' intention is not obligated to pay the electricity charges, etc., in light of the motive and background of the agreement, the status and interest of the parties (the relationship between the seller and the

Articles 105 and 563 of the Civil Act

Anam Industrial Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee

Korea Electric Power Corporation Attorney Oather-jin

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na1580 delivered on November 10, 1986

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that, in purchasing the factory site and buildings, etc. of the non-party 1,960,100 won of the non-party 1,960,000, the non-party 1 and the non-party 1,960,000, the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were entitled to the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were entitled to the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were entitled to the above non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the defendant paid the above non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the defendant.

2. However, in a case where the contract is generally entered into, as stipulated in the special agreement of this case, the agreement is interpreted to the effect that the seller is liable to pay the debt at the buyer's expense on the premise that the seller is liable to pay the electricity fee, etc. In addition, the agreement that the seller agrees to pay the buyer the electricity fee, etc. which the seller is not liable to pay to the third party constitutes an exception in light of the general transaction concept. Therefore, in order to recognize it, it should be viewed as an exception in light of the motive and background of the agreement, the status and interest of the parties (the relationship between the seller and the buyer, the relationship between the seller and the third party, etc.), and all other circumstances such as transaction practices, such as the electricity fee, etc. which the parties' intent to pay to the buyer, but it should be viewed as having not been liable to pay to the buyer.

Nevertheless, the court below, without examining and determining whether the Japanese banks are liable to pay the delinquent electricity charges of this case for the Dongo Employment, or if there are no special circumstances to impose the duty to pay the electricity charges of this case for the defendant, which is the third party contract between the Japanese bank and the ASEAN, constitutes an unlawful act of misapprehending the interpretation of the provisions of the instant special agreement or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

It is reasonable to argue about this point.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on other grounds of appeal, the part against the plaintiff among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)