(a) The case holding that, in a case where Gap, at the time of purchasing the factory, was unaware of the seller Eul's delinquency in the payment of the electricity charges, since Byung did not know of the seller Eul's failure to pay the electricity charges, Byung's failure to pay the electricity charges does not constitute a repayment of non-debt under Article 742 of the Civil Act in the event Eul, who reserved and repaid the right

B. The purport of Article 745 of the Civil Act

A. The case holding that in a case where Gap, at the time of purchasing the factory, was unaware of the seller Eul's delinquency in the payment of the electricity charges, but Byung did not know of the seller Eul's failure to pay the electricity charges, and Byung reserved the right to request the return and repaid the overdue electricity charges of Eul, which were not inevitably accepted for the supply of the electricity, the purchase does not constitute a payment without debt under Article 742 of the Civil Act, unlike the case where Eul

B. The repayment of non-performance pursuant to Article 745 of the Civil Act limits the obligee’s right to claim the return of unjust enrichment that has been discharged by mistake on behalf of the obligee in the event the obligee loses his claim in good faith due to the destruction of evidentiary documents, etc. in the event that a third party, other than the obligor, has discharged the obligation by mistake as his/her own obligation

A. Article 742 of the Civil Act: Article 745 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 67Da1683 Decided September 26, 1967, 76Da2212 Decided December 14, 1976 (Gong197,9819) and 87Da432 Decided February 9, 1988 (Gong198,498)

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant

Korea Electric Power Corporation et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na39394 delivered on April 30, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

As to the Defendant’s Attorney’s Grounds of Appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that on March 27, 1989, the plaintiff purchased 4 lots of land, building 2, high-pressure gas manufacturing facilities, and gas containers including factory sites from the non-party company without knowing the fact that the non-party company was delinquent in paying the electricity charges against the defendant, and that on April 12, 1989, the non-party company paid 3,60,000 won the down payment on the same day, and the part payment 3,60,000 won to the non-party company on April 3 of the same year. The remaining balance is paid by subrogation of the non-party company's delinquent taxes, telephone charges, and deposit money to its customer, and then appropriated the compensation for damages caused by the non-party company's breach of contract, and thus, the defendant's obligation to pay the above amount to the non-party company's charges to the defendant on April 12, 1989, and the defendant did not arbitrarily demand the above defendant to return the above late 17,7,000,00,00,000,00.

In this case, if the Plaintiff did not know the fact that the Plaintiff did not pay electricity charges at the time of the purchase of the factory, and the Defendant reserved and paid the right to claim the return of the non-party company’s overdue electricity charges that were not inevitably accepted for the supply of electricity due to the failure to cause damage to the supply of the factory, it shall not be deemed to constitute a repayment of the non-party company’s debt under Article 742 of the Civil Act, unlike the case of purchase with the knowledge of the default from the purchase date, and the Plaintiff becomes aware of the default after the intermediate payment was made, and the conclusion shall not vary. In addition, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is justifiable. In addition, where a third party, other than the obligor, loses his claim due to the destruction of a certificate in good faith, etc., if the obligee loses his claim, it is a provision that restricts the obligee’s right to claim the return of unjust enrichment that was paid by mistake on behalf of the obligee, as established by the court below, and the Defendant was not aware that the Plaintiff’s obligation was the Plaintiff’s non-party company’s obligation, but did not err in the record.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

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

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice) Park Young-dong Kim Jong-ho