A. Whether the provisions of the Korea Electric Power Corporation that stipulate that the new accommodation succeeds to delinquent electrical charges for the old accommodation are effective as the laws and regulations with general binding power supply (negative)

B. The meaning of “electric rates and other terms of supply” under Article 17(1) of the Electric Utility Act and whether the expropriation includes matters concerning succession of the obligation to pay electricity in arrears (negative)

C. Whether the duty of the owner of the building to pay delinquent water rates under Article 17 of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act naturally succeeds to the new owner (negative)

(a) Even if the provisions on the supply of electricity of the Korea Electric Power Corporation stipulate that the new accommodation succeeds to the delinquent electrical charges of the previous accommodation, this is merely nothing more than setting out the guidelines for the work performance inside the Corporation, and it is not effective as a law with general binding force on the public, and it takes effect only when the expropriation agrees to the above provisions and becomes the content

B. The term “electric rates and other terms of supply” under Article 17(1) of the Electric Utility Act means the terms “electric rates and other terms of supply” which are the terms of the supply contract for the supply of the future electricity from the general electricity business operator, namely, the methods by which the general electricity business operator supplies the electricity from the general electricity business operator to the consumers, and the rates and other terms which the acceptance has been permitted or has to be borne in connection with them, and the matters concerning the succession of the obligation to pay the electricity in arrears by the former expropriation to the Korea Electric Power Corporation are not those concerning the supply of the electricity from the former expropriation to the Korea Electric Power Corporation, and therefore these matters are not included in the terms “electric rates and other terms of supply”.

C. The rights and duties concerning the water supply facilities shall be incidental to the disposal of the building or land where the water supply facilities are installed, and the person who acquired the right to own or manage the water supply facilities shall also succeed to the obligations arising before the acquisition of the water supply facilities pursuant to this Ordinance, even though the above provisions are related to the succession of the rights and duties concerning the water supply facilities, and shall not be deemed to be succeeded to the new owner merely because the former owner acquired the ownership of the building.

(a) Article 105 of the Civil Act and Article 19 of the Electric Utility Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Meu893 decided Dec. 27, 1983 (Gong1984, 260) (Gong1984, 260), 88Da25 decided Apr. 12, 1988 (Gong1988, 843)

[Judgment of the court below]

Korea Electric Power Corporation

Bucheon-si

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na61763 delivered on April 1, 1992

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff against the Korea Electric Power Corporation shall be reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The appeal by the defendant Busan-si is dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the above defendant.

1. As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney

According to Article 17(1) of the Electricity Business Act (amended by Act No. 4214, Jan. 13, 1990); a general electricity business operator shall establish the rules on electricity rates and other supply terms and shall obtain authorization from the chief of the power resources, and shall also apply to any modification thereof; a general electricity business operator shall supply electricity in accordance with the supply rules authorized under Article 17(1). A general electricity business operator shall comply with the supply rules authorized under Article 17(1). Meanwhile, Article 12 of the Rules on the Supply of Electricity by Defendant Korea Electric Power Corporation (Evidence 1) provides that where an expropriation is changed due to sale, inheritance, or other causes, a new expropriation shall continue to use electricity in accordance with the procedure of change of name; in this case, new expropriation shall succeed to all rights and obligations of the former expropriation related to the extinguishment of supply and demand of electricity; where a new expropriation is used due to changes in its name, a new expropriation shall not be deemed to have been made pursuant to Article 15(1) of the former Civil Procedure Act’s new expropriation and new expropriation shall not be deemed to have been made pursuant to Article 15(5).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, on October 26, 1990, the plaintiff paid the price of the factory of this case, which was owned by the non-party, at the Incheon District Court 90 another 6486 voluntary auction procedure, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 7, 1991. The plaintiff discovered that the repair work was commenced for the operation of the factory and sought advice from the defendant Korea Electric Power Corporation, that the above non-party's demand for the supply of electricity could not be made until the non-party's delinquent electrical charges are paid. The plaintiff, on February 23, 1991, paid the above defendant a total of 26,87,290 won to the above defendant from November 16, 1989 to November 15, 199, and the plaintiff submitted the above defendant's claim for the return of unjust enrichment from the above defendant's delinquent electrical charges for the reason that the above delinquent electrical charges are invalid. The plaintiff's submission of the above consent to the plaintiff's new electricity supply charges to the defendant 13197.

However, even if the provision on the supply of electricity by the Defendant Electric Power Corporation provides that the new expropriation shall succeed to the delinquent electrical charges of the previous expropriation, this provision is only limited to setting out the guidelines for the work inside the said Defendant Corporation, and it is not effective as a general binding law with respect to the public, and the expropriation shall take effect only when the expropriation is subject to a contract with the consent of the above provision (see Supreme Court Decision 83Meu893 delivered on December 27, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2094 delivered on February 10, 198; Supreme Court Decision 88Da25 delivered on April 12, 198), as decided by the court below, it shall not be deemed that the new expropriation promptly becomes liable for the payment of the delinquent electrical charges under Articles 17 and 19(2) of the Electric Utility Act and Article 15(2) of the above supply provision.

The term "electric rates and other terms and conditions of supply" under Article 17 (1) of the Electric Utility Act means the terms and conditions of the electricity supply contract for the supply of the future electricity by a general electricity business operator or by a person who intends to be supplied with electricity, i.e., the method of supplying the electricity by a general electricity business operator to a receiver, and the charges or other terms and conditions to be accepted or to be borne by him in connection with this, and matters concerning the succession of the obligation to pay the electricity in arrears by the former expropriation to the defendant Korea Electric Power Corporation by the former expropriation is a matter as to whether the new expropriation takes over the obligation to the defendant Korea Electric Power Corporation by the former expropriation, and therefore, such matters shall not be included in the "electric rates and other terms and conditions of supply" above.

Article 14(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Electric Utility Act provides for the criteria for authorization or revision of the supply regulations under the provisions of Article 17(1) of the Act. The provisions on the supply of electricity stipulate the contents of charges and electrical construction, the bearing of expenses, and the rights and obligations and responsibilities between general electricity business operators and users of electricity. According to the provisions of Article 22 of the Enforcement Rule, matters concerning the supply and use of electricity (Article 1, 2, 3, 7 through 12) and charges (Article 4), and matters concerning the burden of expenses due to the installation of electric facilities (Article 5) and subparagraphs 4 and 5 of Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Electric Utility Act, in cases where the consumers of electricity bear the burden of expenses due to the installation of electric facilities (Article 5) and the method of determining the amount (Article 6). The new expropriation does not include the provision on the supply of electricity between general electricity business operators and the consumers of electricity concerning the succession of rights and obligations and the liability of the consumers.

As such, unless the Plaintiff consented to, or the consent to, the above provision on the succession of the obligation to pay the overdue electricity charges by the old accommodation, it cannot be said that the above non-party’s liability to pay the overdue electricity charges is not immediately succeeded to the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 17(1) and 19(2) of the Electric Utility Act and Articles 12(1) and 15(2) of the above provision on the supply of electricity by the Defendant. The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the above provision on the Electric Utility Act and the provision on the supply of electricity.

There is reason to discuss.

2. As to the ground of appeal by Defendant Busan District Court

In light of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff was unable to pay the water rate until the time when the plaintiff was awarded a successful bid for the factory of this case. Since the above defendant notified the non-party of the non-party's delinquency in paying the water rate and notified the non-party that the water rate could not be supplied until the time when the non-party was paid the water rate, the court below recognized that the plaintiff paid the water rate in arrears because he was in an imminent state where the above factory was unable to operate the above factory, and that the plaintiff was unable to be supplied with the water from another place, and that the above payment of the water rate in arrears was inevitable because he did not neglect to be supplied with the water from another place, and therefore, the above payment of the water rate in arrears was null and void as an unfair conduct, and thus, the above defendant recognized that the amount of the water rate in arrears was refunded

According to Article 22 of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act which was enacted pursuant to Article 17 of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act (No. 3), the rights and obligations concerning the water supply facilities are incidental to the disposition of the building or land where the relevant water supply facilities are installed, and the person who acquired the right to own or manage the water supply facilities succeeds to the obligations arising before the acquisition thereof pursuant to this Ordinance. The above defendant asserts that the plaintiff succeeded to the above non-party's obligation to pay the delinquent water supply fees under the above provision, and the plaintiff is merely the non-party's performance of his obligation. However, the above provision concerning the succession of the rights and obligations concerning the water supply facilities, and therefore, it cannot be said that the above non-party's obligation to pay the delinquent water supply fees of the above non-

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is justified.

In addition, the court below rejected the above defendant's non-payment order on the ground that the above defendant's non-payment order was made for the reason that the above defendant's non-payment order was made against his own free will, under the inevitable circumstances where the previous owner's non-payment order did not pay the delinquent water fee. The court below's findings of fact and decision are just and there are no errors in the rules of evidence, the incomplete hearing or the misapprehension

For the above reasons, the Plaintiff’s appeal is with merit, and this part of the case is reversed among the judgment below against the Defendant’s failure against the Korea Electric Power Corporation, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. The Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the Defendant.