부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The Plaintiff’s main grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, except for the part to be determined additionally under paragraph (2) below, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is examined, the fact-finding and the
The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, except for adding Paragraph 2 below, and thus, it refers to the reasoning of the court of first instance pursuant to Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of the instant purchase intent and the instant agreement constitute a standardized contract, and the provision of forfeiture of subscription money stipulated in the instant purchase intent constitutes unfair clauses, which are null and void in violation of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (hereinafter “Standard Contracts Act”).
B. Determination 1) In a case where a party to a contract prepared a contract in advance in order to conclude a contract with a large number of other parties and presented it to a certain party, if the other party had an opportunity to adjust his/her interests by means of an individual negotiation (or negotiation) as to a specific provision with the other party, such specific provision shall be deemed an individual agreement not subject to the Act on the Standards of Terms and Conditions, and in order to establish the existence of an individual negotiation, even though the result of the negotiation does not necessarily appear in the form of changing the contents of a specific provision, the other party to the contract may change its contents by exercising influence after sufficiently reviewing and considering the specific provision in almost equal status with the other party who prepared the specific provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da27015, Jul. 25, 2013). The letter of intent for purchase and the agreement in this case was prepared in advance by the defendant in order to conclude the contract with a large number of other parties.