Where an agreement on the payment of overdue electricity charges by the previous confinement does not constitute unfair legal acts.

Before purchasing a factory whose electricity charges were suspended due to the default of electricity supply, the agreement to pay the overdue electricity charges with the knowledge of the existence of the overdue electricity charges for the previous accommodation and concluded a sales contract with the above official, cannot be deemed null and void as an unfair legal act.

Articles 103 and 104 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 797, Dec. 1, 1987)

New Linta Posting Company

Korea Electric Power Corporation

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 37,071,564 won with 25% interest per annum from the next day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

The non-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-based factory site 467 square meters, and 1025 factory site 2743 square meters and above ground factory site-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party company failed to pay electricity rates of 27,071,564 won from January 1, 13983 to April 1983, the defendant suspended the supply of electricity to the factory of this case. The subsequent plant acquired ownership of the above factory at the Industrial Bank on December 2, 1985, the plaintiff entered into a sales contract for the factory of this case and received it.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above contract for the supply of electricity to Nonparty 1 for the supply of electricity can not be reached unless the Defendant paid the above overdue charge. The Plaintiff concluded a contract for the supply of electricity to Defendant 2, who was the exclusive supplier of electricity, to pay the above overdue charge to the Plaintiff on the ground that the above contract for the supply of electricity to the Plaintiff was null and void because the above contract for the supply of electricity to the Plaintiff was clearly lost its fairness, and thus, the above overdue charge which the Defendant received based on the above contract should be returned to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment without any legal cause. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above contract for the supply of electricity to the Defendant for the supply of electricity to the Plaintiff was concluded on the first time after the date of the above contract for the supply of electricity to the Plaintiff, and that the above contract for the supply and demand of electricity to the Defendant for the sale of electricity to the Defendant for the supply and demand of electricity without any dispute over the establishment of the above contract for the sale and demand of the Plaintiff’s new auction charge No. 4-2 (No. 1) and No. 2).7).

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case, which is premised on the presumption that the contract for the installment payment of delinquent electricity is null and void as an unfair legal act, is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Cho Soo-tae (Presiding Judge)