The case holding that the act of the manager taking over the overdue electricity payment obligation of the former owner cannot be deemed as an unfair legal act under Article 104 of the Civil Act.

The successful bidder of the factory building requested the Korea Electric Power Corporation to take a short measure because he did not have a factory since the former owner's employees refused to deliver the factory after the former owner's payment of the auction deposit. In this case, when the former owner demanded the former owner to pay the overdue electricity charges again after taking over the above factory, the latter owner's deposit of KRW 21,00,000 before he thought that the former owner would be fully paid the overdue electricity charges from the successful bid price, and when the former owner fails to receive the dividends from the successful bid price, he did not raise an objection such as the overdue electricity in substitution for the overdue electricity charges, and supplied the former owner with the electricity as the operator of the electric facility, and later 10 days after and later, 10 days after the successful bidder's request for the supply of electricity again before the former owner's acquisition of the above factory, the latter's act of taking over the above overdue electricity charges from the successful bidder can not be seen as a substantial loss in light of the empirical rule, unless the latter's request was made.

Article 104 of the Civil Act

Main Economic Area Co., Ltd.

Korea Electric Power Corporation (Attorney Dae-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 87Na4977 delivered on May 4, 198

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

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

The reasoning of the judgment below is that, even if the Defendant unilaterally owned the above real estate under the name of the non-party 1, the non-party 2 was unable to receive the above non-party 1,00,000 won at the auction procedure where the creditors of the non-party 1 were applied for a compulsory auction (which was recorded in the subsequent auction), and the Plaintiff could not receive the above non-party 1,00,000 won at the time of the above change of the sales price of the company's sales price for the above 1,10,000 won, and then, the Plaintiff could not receive the above change of the sales price for the non-party 1,00 won from the non-party 2, which was the non-party 1,50,000 won of the above sales price for the non-party 1, and the non-party 2, who did not receive the above change of the sales price for the non-party 1,500,000 won for the non-party 1,7,000 won.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff was found to have received 0,00 won in cash from the 10th of the above 7th of the 8th of the 19th of the 19th of the 196th of the 19th of the 196th of the 19th of the 19th of the 19th of the 19th of the 19th of the 19th of the 19th of the 19th of the 19th of the 196th of the 19th of the 19th of the 19th of the 19th of the 19th of the 19th of the 19th of the 10th of the 10th of the 1st of the 19th of the 19th of the 10th of the 1st of the 1st of the 19th of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 2th of the 19th of the 2th of the 1st of the 3th of the 1.

Therefore, the court below's findings of fact that the defendant accepted the full amount of 21,889,79,790 won for the electricity charge of the non-party company in arrears and that the above debt acquisition agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant is null and void as an unfair juristic act using the plaintiff's old-age situation. Since it is obvious that it affected the conclusion of the judgment, it constitutes a ground for reversal under Article 12 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

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 Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won