2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant, and those resulting from the intervention in the appeal.

【Defendant, barring any special circumstance, is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration for the instant commercial buildings on July 21, 2006, in accordance with the transfer agreement, pursuant to the transfer agreement of this case, to the Plaintiff, according to the fact prior to the determination as to the cause of the claim on February 2, 2006.

3. The grounds for this court’s determination as to the Defendant’s and the Intervenor’s assertion, etc. are as stated in the part of “3. Defendant’s argument” in the first instance judgment, except for the following addition, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Supplementary Parts 7. The Defendant’s assertion that the transfer agreement of this case is null and void in violation of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions 1) is based on the Plaintiff’s housing sale trust agreement, which is a kind of contractual terms and conditions prescribed in the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions. The above transfer agreement is null and void as a clause which is unreasonably unfavorable to the customer in that the ownership is transferred to the buyer without any compensation at the time of the occurrence of the insured event.

2) The Defendant’s assertion appears to the purport that the instant transfer agreement is a clause unfavorable to the buyers of commercial buildings, which contains unfairly unfavorable provisions against customers under the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, and thus is null and void as it loses fairness. The instant transfer agreement appears to be a standardized contract in light of its form and content, and thus, the former Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, which was in force at the time (Law No. 7988, Sept. 27, 2006).