용역비
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. In addition to adding the following judgments as to the defendant's argument in the trial of the court of the first instance, the reasoning of this court concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the text of Article 420
[Supplementary Parts]
A. The Defendant asserts that the instant contract constitutes a standardized contract under the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions (hereinafter “Standard Terms and Conditions Regulation Act”), and that the Plaintiff did not fulfill its duty to explain the important contents of the standardized contract, and that the instant contract is an unfair contract and has an exemption clause prohibited under the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, and thus, the instant contract is null and void in accordance with the Standardized Contracts Regulation Act.
First, as to whether the contract in this case falls under the terms and conditions stipulated in the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, "Terms and Conditions" refers to the terms and conditions of the contract in advance prepared by one party to the contract in order to conclude the contract with several other parties regardless of its name, form or scope (Article 2 subparagraph 1). Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the contract in this case was concluded in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract in advance with a certain form to conclude the contract with several other parties. Rather, in light of the contents of evidence No. 1 (the contract in this case), the plaintiff is deemed to have prepared the contract in this case according to the terms and conditions of the contract in this case after individually consulting about the scope of services, work performance period, remuneration for services, etc. under the terms and conditions of the contract in this case
Thus, the defendant's assertion that the contract of this case constitutes a standardized contract is without merit.
B. The Defendant: (a) the Plaintiff’s employee E-certified tax accountant paid to C with the tax authority.