logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고법 1986. 7. 9. 선고 86나372 제4민사부판결 : 상고
[부당이득금반환청구사건][하집1986(3),46]
Main Issues

(a) A case that an agreement to pay a delinquent electricity charge by the former acceptance is null and void as an unfair legal act;

B. Whether the Korea Electric Power Corporation's power supply regulations have the effect of regulating general inmates

Summary of Judgment

A. The Korea Electric Power Corporation refused to supply electricity while demanding the payment of the overdue electricity charges of the former receptors, and thus, if the Korea Electric Power Corporation agreed to pay the overdue electricity charges of the former receptors in response to the demand of the said construction without any means to operate the factory, such agreement is null and void as an unfair legal act done using the old inseminator

B. The provision on the supply of electricity of the above construction works is not effective as a law with general binding power over general inmates, and its provision is deemed as an agreement on the supply of electricity, barring any special circumstance, it would be effective only to the legal relationship that occurs after the conclusion of the contract, barring any special circumstance.

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 103, 104, and 105 of the Civil Act

Reference Cases

[Defendant-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee

Plaintiff and appellant

Advanced Co., Ltd.

Defendant, Appellant

Korea Electric Power Corporation

Judgment of the lower court

Busan District Court (85 Gohap2092)

Text

The original judgment shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 8,722,060 won with 5% per annum from June 13, 1986 to July 9, 1986, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The above two paragraphs can be provisionally executed.

Effect of Request and Appeal

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 8,722,060 won with 25 percent interest per annum from June 13, 1986 to the date of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant in both the first and second trials and a declaration of provisional execution.

Reasons

In light of the above facts, Gap evidence 1 (storage), Eul evidence 2-1 to 4 (each receipt), Gap evidence 3-1, 4-1, 5-1, 6-2, Gap evidence 8 (a sales contract), Eul evidence 8-1, 1-2 (a supply contract), Eul evidence 1-2 (a delivery contract), and Eul evidence 1-2 (a delivery contract), and Eul evidence 8-2 (a supply of electricity), and the purport of the plaintiff's transfer registration of the above real estate 8-2 (a sale contract for the above 0-1, 5-1, 5-2 for the supply of the above real estate to the non-party 2-1, 5-2, 80-1, 5-2, 80-1, 5-2, 80-1, 5-2, 6-2, 97, 5-2, 7, 1984, 5-2, 1988.

Therefore, in this case where the plaintiff purchased the real estate in this case without special circumstances, the non-party Busan Bank did not succeed to the non-party company's obligation to pay the overdue electricity charges, and therefore, the plaintiff who purchased it from the non-party Busan Bank is not in the position to succeed to the above obligation. Nevertheless, the defendant, who cannot refuse to supply electricity without justifiable reasons, refuses to pay the above obligation of the non-party company to the plaintiff on the ground that the non-party company's obligation is naturally succeeded to the plaintiff. Thus, if the plaintiff is not supplied with electricity, the plaintiff first agreed to pay it as requested by the defendant, which would cause enormous damages due to the failure to operate the factory. Thus, the above agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was made to pay it to the plaintiff as requested by the defendant. Thus, the above agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant is null and void, regardless of whether the plaintiff assumed the obligation of the non-party company or not. Thus, the defendant's receipt of the above amount of 8,722,060 won from the plaintiff without any legal ground.

However, in purchasing the instant real estate from the Busan Bank, the Defendant agreed that the non-party company had already agreed to pay the electricity charges of KRW 8,772,060 with the knowledge that the non-party company failed to pay the electricity charges of KRW 8,772,060. Accordingly, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the above electricity charges to the non-party company for the defendant who had already acquired or had already agreed to pay the above electricity charges with the non-party Busan Bank on behalf of the non-party for a third party, and the defendant had already expressed his intent to return the above profits to the plaintiff, and the above receipt of the above payment is eventually legitimate. Thus, the above payment of the above money is no other evidence than the non-party company's testimony that the plaintiff knew that the non-party company's failure to pay the electricity charges of the non-party company was known in purchasing the instant real estate from the Busan Bank, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the non-party company's non-party company and the non-party company's non-party company's non-party company acquired the above real estate charges of this case.

In addition, the defendant's agreement on the payment of the overdue electricity charges is null and void for the above reasons, and therefore, even if the defendant's payment of the overdue electricity charges was unjust, the plaintiff agreed to comply with the defendant's provision on the succession of the overdue electricity charges with the defendant when entering into a new electricity supply contract with the defendant, so the defendant's acceptance of the overdue electricity charges is eventually legitimate. Thus, in full view of the above facts, Gap's evidence Nos. 7, 8, 1-1, 2, and 1-2, and the purport of the arguments in the above witness Park Jong-man's testimony, the plaintiff agreed to comply with the defendant's new electricity supply regulations in applying the above overdue electricity charges to the defendant with the payment of the overdue electricity charges as well as the above agreement on the payment of the overdue electricity charges to the defendant, as long as there were changes in the expropriation fees due to inheritance or other reasons, the defendant's new electricity supply charges can not be applied to the defendant's new electricity supply contracts without the defendant's consent to the above new electricity supply charges to the defendant's new electricity supply charges.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above unjust enrichment amounting to 8,722,060 won and its final date of receipt, and it is obvious that the following day after the application for correction of the purport of the claim and its cause was served to the defendant, according to the plaintiff's request, and it is reasonable to dispute as to the existence of the obligation to return the unjust enrichment of this case from June 13, 1986 to July 9, 1986, which is the date of the decision of the court of first instance. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 25% per annum under the Special Act on the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for this case is justified within the above scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed. Since the original judgment is unlawful with some conclusion, it is modified as per Disposition by accepting part of the plaintiff's appeal and by applying Article 96, Article 89 and the proviso of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Lee Hong-won (Presiding Judge)

Judges Kim Jin-jin may not sign and seal on overseas training.

arrow