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

1. As to whether this case’s expense apportionment clause is null and void

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiffs obtained a real estate loan from the defendant and entered into a contract with eight types of standardized terms and conditions (hereinafter "standard terms and conditions in this case"), such as bank credit transaction terms and conditions, mortgage contract, etc. which the defendant prepared and presented in advance, and the contract, etc. include each of the following: (a) stamp tax pursuant to the formation of the agreement as to the bearing of expenses incurred in the procedures for the creation of collateral security; (b) registration tax, education tax, purchase of national housing bonds, certified judicial scrivener fees, cancellation expenses following cancellation of mortgage, appraisal fees, etc.; and (c) divide the registration tax, education tax, education tax, purchase of national housing bonds, registration fee, cancellation expenses following cancellation of mortgage, etc. into each item of expenses into the "debtor", "establishr", and "company (defendant)"; and (d) the plaintiffs explicitly bear the relevant expenses in accordance with the method of indicating each item of expenses in each column (hereinafter "cost bearing clause in this case").

Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the instant cost-bearing clause constitutes an unfair terms and conditions unfairly unfavorable to the Plaintiffs, which are customers, and thus null and void pursuant to Article 6 of the former Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (amended by Act No. 10169, Mar. 22, 2010; hereinafter “Act”), and partly accepted the Plaintiffs’ claim for return of unjust enrichment seeking return on the ground that the costs incurred by the Plaintiffs under the instant cost-bearing clause are legal grounds.

B. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the lower court.

(1) Pursuant to Article 6(1) and (2)1 of the Act.