Whether an agreement between the factory buyer and the Korea Electric Power Corporation is an unfair legal act under which the former owner agreed to take over the delinquent electrical charges (negative) and the former owner’s obligation to purchase the factory from the non-party bank and the former Korea Electric Power Corporation to pay the overdue

When the purchaser purchased a factory from the bank from the non-party bank, in cases where the non-party bank entered into an agreement with the non-party bank that the electricity supply is suspended due to the failure of the former owner of the above factory to pay the overdue electricity charges, and that the buyer would not receive the overdue electricity charges, the purchaser was predicted that the non-party bank would incur losses due to the failure to receive the electricity supply from the Korea Electric Power Corporation if the non-party bank did not pay the overdue electricity charges at the time of the purchase of the above factory, which would result in the failure to operate the factory due to the failure to receive the electricity supply from the Korea Electric Power Corporation. Therefore, even if that agreement was predicted, the purchaser purchased the above factory from the non-party bank and agreed to pay the overdue electricity charges to the above construction, which would result in losses to the buyer

Article 104 of the Civil Act

대법원 1987.2.10. 선고 86다카2094 판결(공1987,427) 1987.12.8. 선고 87다카2009 판결(겅1988,277) 1988.4.12.선고 88다2 판결(공1988,843) 1988.10.24. 선고 88다카16454 판결(공1989,1749)

Hanm Chemical Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korea Electric Power Corporation’s Attorney Park Jae-hoon

Daegu High Court Decision 88Na4653 delivered on April 12, 1989

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the original factory was owned by the non-party Kim Jong-si, but the non-party Kim Jong-si failed to pay electricity charges of 12,58,851 won during the period he owned, and the defendant suspended the supply of electricity from July 15, 1982 due to the failure to pay electricity charges. The non-party Industrial Bank of Korea acquired the ownership of the above factory on February 14, 1983, and sold it to the plaintiff on June 25 of the same year. The plaintiff purchased the factory of this case from the above bank and delivered it to the defendant to move it to a straight factory, but the plaintiff requested the supply of electricity to the defendant to supply electricity without paying the above Kim Jong-si's delinquent electricity charges, and the plaintiff was unable to supply electricity without paying it, and the plaintiff could not be found to suffer enormous damages due to the non-party Kim Jong-chul's failure to pay electricity charges, and the plaintiff could not be found to have agreed to pay electricity charges to the defendant 281.

However, according to the facts and records established by the court below, when purchasing an original factory from the non-party bank, the plaintiff agreed with the non-party bank that the supply of electricity was suspended due to the failure of the former owner of the above factory to pay the overdue electricity charges and that the supply of electricity would not be paid without paying the overdue electricity charges. Thus, if the facts are identical, the plaintiff was predicted that if the non-party bank purchased the above factory from the non-party bank, it would incur losses due to the failure to receive the supply of electricity from the defendant due to the failure to pay the overdue electricity charges, the plaintiff would not be deemed an unfair act committed under the circumstances where the plaintiff would suffer losses due to the failure to operate the factory due to the failure to pay the overdue electricity charges. Thus, even if the plaintiff predicted it, the non-party bank purchased the above factory from the non-party bank and agreed to bear the overdue electricity charges against the defendant.

Recognizing the facts of the decision of the court below, the decision of the court below that the agreement of the plaintiff on the payment of the electricity charges in arrears was a juristic act which has considerably lost fairness due to the plaintiff's mergence, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the law on unfair legal acts.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)