채무부존재확인
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this Court is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment under the following 2. 2. The reasoning of this Court is as follows:
[Judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance as evidence Nos. 4 through 6 (including paper numbers) submitted by the plaintiff in this court. 2. The plaintiff asserts that the loan agreement of this case is null and void in accordance with Article 1 of the Terms and Conditions Regulation Act, Article 7 subparag. 3 and Article 11 subparag. 1 of the Terms and Conditions Regulation Act (hereinafter "Terms and Conditions Act").
However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that Article 1 of the Terms and Conditions of this case constitutes "a clause which, without any reasonable reason, excludes or limits a business operator's liability for warranty, or increases the requirements for the customer's exercise of rights in accordance with the warranty liability" under Article 7 subparagraph 3 of the Terms and Conditions of this case or "a clause which, without considerable reason, excludes or limits a customer's right of defense, offset, etc. under the law" under Article 11 subparagraph
[Standard Contract Terms and Conditions for Loans (Evidence A No. 5) submitted by the Plaintiff was enacted on December 1, 2017, and there is no evidence to be deemed to have been enforced on or before December 6, 2017, which is the date of the instant loan agreement. According to the news report materials (Evidence A No. 4) of September 14, 2017, “The standard terms and conditions were determined through detailed discussions with the Korean Association, etc., and the preparation period of the industry, such as repair of terms and conditions, system improvement, etc. during the fourth quarter of 17, takes into account after determining the draft terms and conditions after taking into account the preparation period of the industry, such as repair of terms and conditions, system improvement, etc., during the fourth quarter of 17.” 3. Thus, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and thus, the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.