보험금
The Defendant’s appeal against the Intervenor is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are borne by the Intervenor joining the Defendant.
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is to dismiss “5.62%” of the third party judgment of the court of first instance as “5.62%”, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, except for the addition of the judgment on the allegations added by the defendant joining the court of first instance to this court as follows. Thus, this is to be cited pursuant to the main sentence of
2. Judgment on the argument of the Intervenor joining the Defendant
A. As to the allegation that the entire contract of this case is null and void, determination 1) the general terms and conditions of the instant contract for construction works asserted by the Intervenor joining the Defendant (Article 3, 4, 8, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 33, 34, 36) and the standard contract for private construction works publicly notified by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (hereinafter “standard contract”).
In comparison with the general conditions, the main contents of the instant contract are unilaterally favorable to the Plaintiff and unilaterally unfavorable to the Defendant joining the Defendant. Therefore, the instant contract is null and void by a substantially unfair contract. (2) Article 104 of the Civil Act of the judgment of the lower court provides that “A juristic act of which fairness has been significantly lost due to the party’s poverty, rashness, or inexperience shall be null and void.”
Although the Intervenor asserted that the instant contract was remarkably unfair, the Defendant did not assert and prove any assertion or evidence as to the fact that it was due to the party’s old-age, rashness, or inexperience.
The above argument of the Intervenor joining the Defendant is without merit to further examine.
B. Article 30(1)2 and 5 of the General Conditions of the instant contract, which recognizes the cancellation of the contract unilaterally to the Plaintiff, notwithstanding the existence of circumstances that cannot be seen as reasons attributable to the Defendant’s Intervenor, such as design change, rain, and salt, the determination on the invalidity of Article 30(1)2 and 5 of the General Conditions of the instant contract, is based on the general conditions of the standard contract.