Whether a new inmate naturally succeeds to the liability for the overdue electricity fee of the previous inmate (negative)

According to the provisions of Article 15 of the Electric Utility Act and Articles 11 and 14 of the Electricity Supply Act, where there is a change in the expropriation price due to reasons such as sale, inheritance, etc., the new accommodation succeeds to all the rights and obligations related to the use of the electricity by the previous accommodation even after the termination of the supply and demand contract, and where the new accommodation is intended to use the electricity again at the new accommodation site, the former accommodation’s electrical charge liability is automatically succeeded. However, the above provisions do not have any effect as an Act having a general binding force on the public, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the new accommodation succeeds to the unpaid electrical charge liability for the previous accommodation. Even if the above provisions were to be the content of the agreement under the electricity supply contract between the new expropriation and the new expropriation, in principle, it is effective only to the legal relationship between the new expropriation and the previous one occurring after the conclusion of the contract, and the provisions that impose any responsibility not attributable to the new expropriation are applied only if the new expropriation fully aware of the content of the provision and consent to its application by free will.

Article 15 of the Electric Utility Act, Article 11 of the Electricity Supply Regulations, Article 14 of the said Regulations

Supreme Court Decision 83Meu893 Decided December 27, 1983 (Special II Article 15(1) of the Electric Utility Act) 495 Nu31, 146Gong7222, 260)

Macam cancer

Korea Electric Power Corporation

Daegu District Court of the first instance (87 Gohap1106)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 15,94,884 won with 25% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

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

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs are assessed against all of the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

The Plaintiff, on August 25, 1986, purchased electricity charges of 5,478,636 won on October 1983, the electricity charges of 6,432,181 won on November of the same year, and paid 3,874,258 won on the aggregate of the electricity charges of 15,94,84,84 won on January 1984, and 159,94,000 won on the ground that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to obtain the above 1,2,000,000 won on behalf of the Defendant for the above 1,50,000,000 won from the above 1,50,000 won on the supply of electricity to the Defendant at the request of the above 1,50,000 won on the supply of electricity to the Defendant for the above 1,50,000 won on behalf of the above 1,54,000,000 won on the ground that it was against the Defendant’s 1,74,01,06,01.

According to the above facts, although the plaintiff is not liable to pay the above non-party's overdue electricity charges by succession to the non-party's above overdue electricity charges, the above non-party's above non-party's overdue electricity charges shall be paid instead of the plaintiff. The above agreement between the defendant is null and void as a juristic act of clearly losing fairness since the plaintiff's preferential payment of the above overdue electricity charges was made in accordance with the defendant's demand that the plaintiff would supply electricity to the plaintiff, because it was impossible to operate the above factory purchased in large amount and the machinery installed for the manufacture of the bicycle parts if the defendant, who is the exclusive supplier of the electricity, was unable to be supplied with electricity from the defendant. Thus, the above agreement between the defendant, barring any special circumstances, shall be deemed to be unjust enrichment and thus the defendant shall be deemed to have a duty to return it to the plaintiff.

However, according to the above provisions of Articles 11 and 14 of the Electric Utility Act, if there is a change in the expropriation price for the above real estate at the time of the above sale and purchase, the Defendant succeeds to all the rights to the Defendant’s use of the electricity at the time of the above sale and purchase agreement, and if the new expropriation is intended to use the electricity at the time of the abolition of the supply and demand agreement, the Plaintiff naturally succeeds to the obligations of the former expropriation in accordance with the above provision on the supply and sale of the electricity at the time of the sale and purchase agreement with the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant’s acceptance of the above overdue charges would not be justified even after the conclusion of the new sale and purchase agreement with the Defendant on the part of the Defendant’s new sale and purchase agreement with the Defendant. According to the above provisions of Articles 18 and 14, the Defendant’s new sale and purchase agreement with the Defendant’s new sale and purchase agreement with the Defendant on the part of the foregoing real estate that the Plaintiff had agreed to the effect that the new expropriation charges will not be applied to the Defendant’s new expropriation.

The above purport of Article 11 of the contract with respect to defects can be acknowledged, but if the above contract contains a legal obligation to pay the above bank since the purchase and sale of the factory of this case, taxes and public charges related to the factory of this case were incurred before and after the conclusion of the above sale and purchase contract, the above bank and the plaintiff are parties to the sale and purchase, and if the above bank are obligated to pay the above purchase and sale contract between the above bank and the plaintiff, they are internal burdens between the parties to the above transaction for the above bank. The above non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-performance of overdue electricity charges (the above provisions on succession of overdue electricity charges as mentioned in the above are invalid as a law, and since the above bank which acquired the factory of this case by successful bid did not have any evidence to consider that the above bank agreed to apply the above provision at the time of the successful bid, it cannot be deemed that the above non-party's non-party's non-party's non-performance electrical electricity charges were transferred to the above bank.

Therefore, the defendant, as unjust enrichment, is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum, which is the interest rate stipulated in Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from July 8, 1987 to the day after the copy of the complaint of this case claimed by the plaintiff was delivered to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case can be accepted for reasons. The judgment of the court below is just and justified as it is, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed as per Disposition with the defendant who is the losing party.

Judge Lee Il-young (Presiding Judge)