채무부존재확인
1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is that it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, except that it considers “effective” as “effective,” and that the second below as “tax exemption business license (DF11)” as “DF11” under the second below, and that it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance. Accordingly, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment as to the main claim
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In the event that the Plaintiff paid the security deposit and did not enter into a contract within 10 days after receiving the notice of bid bid price during the public announcement of the instant case, the bid bond clause that allocates the bid bond of this case more than 5% of the total bid price to the Defendant is unreasonably unfavorable to the Plaintiff, and thus, is null and void in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, since the fairness in violation of the principle of trust and good faith was lost or the Plaintiff was unfairly excessive liability for damages. Therefore, the Defendant shall return the entire bid bond amount received from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment. 2) Even if the contract bond clause is valid, even if the bid bond clause is expected to be confiscated, this would be unreasonable, and thus, the bid bond of this case as prescribed under
Therefore, the Defendant should return the reduced portion of the bid bond received from the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff.
B. In light of the following circumstances, prior to determining whether the provisions on the regulation of standardized contract violated the Act, the provisions on the forfeiture of bid bond was unreasonably unfavorable to the Plaintiff, and thus, lose fairness in violation of the principle of trust and good faith.
The plaintiff shall bear an unreasonably excessive liability for damages.