Interpretation of an agreement to liquidate debts, such as electricity charges, etc. on the subject matter of sale at the purchaser's expense;

In general, in the conclusion of a sales contract, if the parties agree to liquidate the obligation of the seller for the subject matter of sale, such as the electricity fee, etc. that occurred before the conclusion of the contract, it shall be interpreted to the effect that the seller is liquidated the obligation of the buyer at the cost of the buyer on the assumption that the seller is liable to pay the electricity fee, etc. In addition, the agreement that the seller shall pay the buyer for the obligation that the seller does not have to pay to the third party belongs to the case of the general transaction concept. Therefore, in order to interpret such an agreement as mentioned above, in light of various circumstances such as motive and circumstance leading up to the agreement, the status and interest of the parties (the relationship between the seller and the buyer, the relationship between the seller and the third party), and transaction practices, it shall be recognized that the parties have to pay the buyer the electricity fee that the seller has not

Articles 105 and 539 of the Civil Act

Han-jin, Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korea Electric Power Corporation (Law Firm Tae & Yang, Attorney Gyeong Young-young, No. 1548, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na2001 Decided June 30, 1987

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the contract with the above bank was concluded on behalf of the defendant, who was originally owned by the plaintiff, and the non-party 1 corporation purchased the factory site of this case and the building at issue from the above bank, and the defendant refused to supply the electricity, and the above bank requested the defendant to allow the above real estate wholesale market purchaser to pay the above overdue electricity charges before selling the above real estate to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff and the plaintiff agreed to pay the above overdue electricity charges, etc. at the time of selling the above real estate, and that the above agreement with the above bank was concluded on behalf of the plaintiff as a contract with the above bank for the defendant, which was a third party, by receiving the above overdue electricity charges from the plaintiff, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the above overdue electricity charges that the defendant received from the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been paid by the defendant without any legal ground.

However, in general, in the conclusion of a sales contract, if the seller agrees to liquidate the obligation of the seller, such as the electricity fee for the subject matter of sale that occurred prior to the conclusion of the contract, it shall be interpreted to the effect that the seller liquidates the obligation at the buyer's expense on the premise that the seller is liable to pay the electricity fee, etc., and the seller agrees to pay the electricity fee, etc. which the seller does not have any obligation to pay to the third party constitutes an example of general transaction. Therefore, in order to interpret the above agreement as above, in light of the motive and circumstance leading up to such agreement, status and interest of the seller (compensation relationship between the seller and the third party, compensation relationship between the seller and the third party, etc.), and transaction practice, it shall be recognized that the intention of the parties concerned was not obligated to pay the seller, but it was intended to pay it to the buyer, and it shall not be interpreted that the above bank is a contract for the third party on the ground that the above bank requested the buyer to pay the electricity in arrears, and it shall not be examined as evidence from the plaintiff.

Nevertheless, the court below's finding that the above bank and the plaintiff agreed to the above agreement due to the defendant's above request without any deliberation and determination as to other circumstances constitutes an illegal act which caused the interpretation of the above agreement or failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations. It constitutes a ground for reversal of the judgment of the court below under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., which points out this point.

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

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)