Whether an agreement between the successful bidder and the Korea Electric Power Corporation constitutes an unfair legal act, mistake, or a declaration of intent by fraud, under the knowledge that the former owner’s default electricity charges may be paid in full (negative)

If the former owner of a factory was suspended from the supply of electricity due to the default of the electricity charges, and the Korea Electric Power Corporation established a provisional attachment registration for the above factory, etc., and the former owner of the factory was awarded a successful bid for the above factory with the knowledge that the former owner may be supplied with electricity supply only after full payment of the delinquent electricity charges, then the latter successful bidder shall be deemed to constitute an unfair juristic act committed in the past, even if the former owner agreed to take over and pay the delinquent electricity charges between the above construction work and the payment thereof, and shall not be deemed to be an expression

Articles 104, 109, 110, and 453 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-chul, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant) and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Attorney Lee Jae-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korea Electric Power Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na14531 delivered on August 29, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below revealed that when the court below suspended the supply of electricity to the factory of this case upon the application of the Industrial Bank of Korea, which was a collateral security right holder, as the court below discontinued the supply of electricity to the previous owner of the factory of this case, the court below decided that when the supply of electricity was suspended due to the suspension of the supply of electricity to the factory of this case at the request of the non-party Industrial Bank of Korea, which was a collateral security right holder, the court below should inform the plaintiff that the above factory would not take over the above factory due to auction, sale, etc., since the supply of electricity would be possible only after full payment of the electricity, so it would be possible for the plaintiff to take over the above factory due to auction, sale, etc., and that the plaintiff could not be seen as being aware of the above contents of the provisional attachment registration of this case, and that the plaintiff could not be viewed as being aware of the fact that the above contract of this case was made with the plaintiff's expression of intention to take over the above factory of this case and the above contract.

In light of the records, the above facts and judgment of the court below are just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or violation of the grounds for appeal.

The court below held that Article 11 of the Rules on the supply of electricity by the defendant does not mean that the plaintiff is not unfair to take over the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the previous house since the provision that "the new inmate succeeds to the obligation of the charge of the charge of the charge of the electricity of the previous house" has the effect of binding force on the people, but it is judged that the plaintiff is favorable to take the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the previous house at the time of the successful bid of the factory of this case even if

The decision was made to the effect that the decision does not constitute an unfair act. The argument is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)