2015Da24874 Rent

Han Energy Co., Ltd.

1. A;

2. B

Jeju District Court Decision 2014Na2051 Decided March 25, 2015

September 10, 2015

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Jeju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document unless there is any reflective proof, and shall not reject it without reasonable explanation. However, even in the case of a disposal document, if there is an express or implied agreement different from the content of the document, it may recognize facts different from the content of the document, and in interpreting the legal act of the originator, it may be freely determined as evidence to the extent that it does not violate the empirical rules and logical rules (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da34643, Apr. 13, 2006).

2. In this case, where the Plaintiff asserted that he agreed to supply the professional gas to the Defendants “(unauthorized price + 200 won)/km,” the Plaintiff received only a part of the Plaintiff’s claim for gas sales price, on the ground that there is no special circumstance to view the unit price of the professional gas to be supplied to the Defendant as different from the “200 won/km” as stated in the transfer agreement of this case, which is a disposal document.

3. However, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the following circumstances are revealed that the Plaintiff agreed to supply protruding gas to the Defendants as stipulated in the instant special agreement for transfer and acquisition, thereby contradictory to the facts of various anti-proof evidence that are difficult to accept in light of logical and empirical rules.

① At the time of the conclusion of the instant transfer/acquisition agreement with the Defendants, the Plaintiff was supplied pro rata gas within and outside 1,274.40 won/km from static Trades. On the record, the Plaintiff could not find the reasons for the Plaintiff to supply proto the Defendants at a low unit price compared to the unit price they supplied. It is not easily acceptable that the Plaintiff agreed to supply proto the Defendants with an amount equivalent to about 15% of their supplied amount without any particular reasons.

② The Plaintiff’s price of the professional gas supplied by the oil refining is frequently changed, and there is a wide range of change. It is also difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s supply of the professional gas to the fixed amount without reflecting the price change for three years during the contract period.

③ In the event that the Plaintiff supplies the Defendants with the quantity agreed in the “200 won/km” for three (3) years prior to the contract term, the Plaintiff would incur a loss of at least one billion won when compared to the unit price of the prop gas supplied from static. On the other hand, even if the Plaintiff, upon entering into the instant transfer and acquisition contract, receives a “150 won/km” for three (3) years from the Defendants, the amount falls short of the total amount of KRW 200 million during the contract term, and the Plaintiff would incur a significant loss due to the conclusion of the transfer and acquisition contract of this case.

④ From May 2013 to October 2013 after the conclusion of the instant transfer/acquisition agreement, the Defendants appears to have received, as a unit price, more than two times the amount of professional gas supplied from the Plaintiff in excess of “1,300 won/km” from the Plaintiff, even from the Jeju-U.S. Energy. If the Defendants agreed to be supplied with the professional gas from the Plaintiff for “200 won/km,” then there is no reason to receive a large amount of professional gas from other companies than the Plaintiff.

⑤ After the conclusion of the instant transfer/acquisition agreement, the Defendants’ employees entered the trade unit price in KRW 1,494,40 in the trade slip signed by the Defendants employees. On June 10, 2013, after the conclusion of the instant transfer/acquisition agreement, the Defendants stated that, on the Plaintiff on June 10, 2013, other companies sold 20 kg of professional gas to the Plaintiff as salt price of KRW 40,00 (kg price of KRW 2,00) and the Defendants’ losses increase, so that the Defendants’ active support would be achieved. If the agreed professional gas unit price of KRW 200/kg is “200,000,” the Defendants employees signed the said trade list prior to the said transactions, or there is no reason to prove the above content.

4. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff agreed to supply professional gas to the Defendants on the “unit price of 200 won/km” as stated in the instant transfer or takeover agreement. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the probative value of a disposal document, or by recognizing facts contrary to logical and empirical rules, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

5. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remainder of the 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 for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jae-sik et al.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Cho Jong-hee

Chief Justice Park Sang-ok