The part against the plaintiff is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District Court.

1. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal

A. As to the standards for settlement of the sale price and the scope of the obligation for the sale price, (1) Article 6(1) and 6(2)1 of the former Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (amended by Act No. 10169, Mar. 22, 2010; hereinafter “former Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act”) to deem the terms and conditions to be null and void on the ground that they are unfairly unfavorable terms and conditions against the principle of trust and good faith, and thus, are not sufficient to say that the terms and conditions were somewhat disadvantageous to the customer. Moreover, it should be recognized that the standardized terms and conditions preparing the standardized terms and conditions have abused their trade position to make and used the standardized terms and conditions inconsistent with the legitimate interests and reasonable expectations of the contracting party, thereby impairing sound trade order.

In addition, the issue of whether a contract clause constitutes a “unfairly unfavorable clause to a customer” should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the content of the contract clause and the probability of disadvantages that may arise to the customer, the impact on the transaction process between the parties, and the relevant statutes and regulations.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2007Ma1328, Dec. 16, 2008; Supreme Court Decision 2013Da214864, Jun. 12, 2014). In a case where the terms and conditions are provided, even if they are provided, they are general and common in transactions, and thus, they could have sufficiently anticipated for customers even without any separate explanation, or are merely a degree of refluence or extension of those provided under the Acts and subordinate statutes, it cannot be said that the business entity has an obligation to explain and explain such matters.

(2) In light of the following circumstances, the lower court, based on the leased area of the store allocated after drawing the lot, shall pay a rental deposit. (3) In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the leased area of the store.