Whether it constitutes an unfair legal act in which a factory buyer takes over the liability for the overdue electricity charges of the former owner and concludes a sales contract to the Korea Electric Power Corporation later, the payment of the overdue electricity charges to the Korea Electric Power Corporation (negative)

If a plant buyer concludes a sales contract with the knowledge of the fact that the former owner can be supplied with electricity supply only when he/she performs his/her obligation for the overdue electricity charges that occurred when he/she purchases a factory from a bank that is a successful bidder, it cannot be said that the former owner's act of unfair conduct has been done in a state that he/she would suffer enormous damages due to the suspension of the supply of electricity by turning on the payment key of the above overdue electricity charges for the Korea Electric Power Corporation.

Article 104 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-chul, Attorneys Lee In-bok and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-

South Sea Co., Ltd.

Korea Electric Power Corporation et al., Counsel for defendant

Busan District Court Decision 89Na7020 delivered on September 29, 1989

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that, on November 27, 1987, the non-party Park Jong-jin, the representative director of the plaintiff company, purchased the above site, such as 400-6,400-7, and its ground-based factory buildings and instruments (hereinafter the factory of this case) from the Industrial Bank of Korea at voluntary auction procedure, and changed the purchaser's name to the plaintiff and paid the price in full around June 28, 198. However, if the plaintiff did not pay the above charges to the defendant for the above factory, the court below suspended the supply of electricity to the above factory of this case on behalf of the non-party Park Jong-jin, who was originally owned by the non-party Park Jong-jin-jin, and the plaintiff could not pay the above charges to the defendant for the above factory of this case on the ground that the plaintiff could not be able to pay the above charges to the defendant for the supply of electricity to the above factory of this case on December 5, 1987.

However, if Gap evidence 3 (sales Contract) employed by the court below and Eul evidence 5-1 (Request for cooperation in recovering electricity charges in arrears) and 2 (Request for cooperation in recovering charges in arrears), which the court below stated that the court below did not interfere with the approval of the court below, are combined with testimony of part of the testimony of the first instance court witness 7. 20 and the first instance court witness 7. 20 times in lieu of the Industrial Bank of Korea which successfuled the factory building of this case, the defendant shall be deemed to have suspended the supply of the above real estate over two times on July 20, 197 and September 3 of the same year, and the above real estate shall be deemed to have been purchased from the above bank under the circumstance that the plaintiff would not have been liable to pay the above real estate charges in arrears. Accordingly, the plaintiff shall be deemed to have been unable to obtain the above sales contract after being aware of the fact that the above contract had already been concluded with the plaintiff's obligation to purchase and sell the above real estate.

In the end, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to evidence judgment and unfair conduct against the rules of evidence, and this constitutes a ground for reversal under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)