동산취거등
1. The defendant shall collect from the plaintiff the movable property listed in the separate sheet.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
3...
1. The Plaintiff, on October 13, 2016, purchased movable property listed in the separate sheet from the Defendant’s representative on his/her behalf on his/her purchase on October 13, 2016; and B, in cases where average profits and losses of the Plaintiff and coffee sales do not accrue for six months, may be acknowledged that the Plaintiff agreed to collect movable property listed in the separate sheet without any conditions, such as penalty, etc. (hereinafter “instant collection agreement”); barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to collect movable property listed in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant collection agreement
The defendant asserts to the effect that the collection agreement of this case is null and void, as the above movable supply contract states the provision that "any sign and oral contract other than the contents of this contract shall not be liable to us."
Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions provides that "a party to a contract" refers to a contract prepared in advance in order to enter into a contract with several other parties, regardless of its name, form or scope, in order to enter into such contract. Article 3 of the same Act provides that a business operator shall explain important matters of the terms and conditions so that customers can understand such important matters, and where a business operator enters into a contract in violation of such terms and conditions
It is reasonable to see that the above provision claimed by the defendant is placed in the same word for the sale of coffees to many unspecified persons, and it constitutes a standardized contract. Since there is no evidence of assertion that the defendant's business employees C, etc. explain the above standardized contract to the plaintiff, it is reasonable to see that the above provision is invalid.
Furthermore, in light of the fact that the above provision is clearly inconsistent with the instant collection agreement, it is difficult to view that C explained the above provision to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, it is reasonable to view the above provision as null and void.