[2] The case holding that an unfair contract is null and void in light of all circumstances, such as the type of lottery ticket and its contents are not printed on the ticket, and thus, it is difficult for customers to expect it, in light of various circumstances, and thus, it is difficult for them to expect.

[2] The case holding that an unfair contract is null and void in light of all circumstances, such as the type of lottery ticket and its contents are not printed on the ticket, and thus, it is difficult for the customer to anticipate it, in light of various circumstances, such as the provision that a prize payment shall be made only when the verification number printed on the ticket and the verification number offered by the manufacturer are consistent with the detailed prize criteria of "Stotok 200"

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. Facts of recognition

(1) In other words, the Defendant decided to issue a 1st sptoto 200 million "200,000, and sold some of them. The method of the above lottery game is to pay the prize money for each corresponding column in the direction of street 5 in the case of a game 1, where one of the four "the number" in the spto number and the column of the game in the case of a game 1, where three of the same game 2, in the case of a game 3, in the case of a game 3, where three of the two sides are three, where three of the two sides are the same in the case of a game 4, in the case of a game, three of the same number in the direction of street 5.

(2) As the plaintiffs purchased the above lottery tickets and carried out the game, the plaintiff 1 confirmed that there are three same numbers in the 4th page of the above game, and the prize amount is indicated as KRW 100 million, and that there are three same numbers in the 4th column of the plaintiff 2 degree game, three of the same numbers, and one of the lottery tickets whose prize amount is KRW 100 million are indicated as KRW 100 million (hereinafter “the lottery in this case”), and requested the defendant to pay the prize amount on September 21, 2006.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-2 and 3-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

(b) Markets:

According to the above facts of recognition, if there are three same numbers between the plaintiffs and the defendant, the defendant is obligated to pay the prize amount of KRW 100 million for each of the above amounts and delay damages for each of the above amounts, according to the contract with the plaintiffs to pay the prize amount.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The assertion about the defective lottery tickets

(1) Notes

In other words, the first letter, "Stop 200,000, 200,000, a printing company, has printed the instant lottery ticket to UEC, which is the printing company. The UEC printed the instant lottery ticket (in a way that two hedges are used) and then printed one column of the game data of Hd (H4) by changing the number of H (H4) computer operating numbers on each hedged numbers as shown in the attached sheet. According to the Defendant's UEC's order to manufacture the Defendant's UEC, 1.0 in the game column 1,2 in the game column 3 in the game column, 3 in the game column 3 in the game column, 40,000 won in the game column 4 in the game column 5,56 (100,000 won in the game column) in the game column 5,50,000 won in the game column 40,000 won in each of the above winning numbers were printed.

In addition, the back of the instant lottery ticket provides that “the lottery ticket with the printing defect shall be exchanged for other lottery tickets.” As such, with respect to the instant lottery ticket manufactured in a form other than the printed contents intended by the Defendant, the Defendant is only obligated to exchange with other lottery tickets, and the prize money is not paid on the premise that it is normally printed and manufactured.

(2) Determination:

(A) According to each description of the above printing error of the instant lottery ticket claimed by the Defendant, it is recognized that the above printing error of the instant lottery ticket can be exchanged for other lottery tickets, and that the above printing error of the instant lottery ticket is stated as follows: “If this lottery ticket is lost, contaminated, or damaged, the prize money shall not be paid, and the ticket with a printing defect shall be printed in exchange for other lottery tickets.” The fact that the Plaintiffs won prize of KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,00,000, or0

However, in light of the characteristics of the instant lottery ticket and the purport of the above language and text, the printing defect as referred to in the instant lottery ticket refers to the external defect of the degree of unfolding from contamination and damage, i.e., the Arabic number, in case of printing on a symbol, writing, or figure, if it is impossible to distinguish letters, it refers to the defect of the extent that it is deemed that it is not a normal lottery ticket in appearance, such as the case of printing a prize or number overlapping, and it can not be deemed that there is an internal error that can only be known by the Defendant, as in the instant case, and it can not be deemed that there is any defect in appearance in appearance.

(B) In addition, the issue in the event that the printing company's actual game data was printed in one column or it violated the manufacturing instruction, which is only an internal guidelines between the defendant and the printing company, and the problem in the game column is merely the defendant's responsible area, which neglected to check, etc., and it does not necessarily constitute a justifiable reason to refuse the payment of prize money to the plaintiffs who purchased the lottery tickets without any defect in appearance, such as the instant lottery ticket, without knowing such circumstance (the defendant argued that the above printing error could not be checked due to the screen screener, but the method can be considered to find errors by the method of setting serial numbers on the two hedges, so it is not always impossible to check).

B. The assertion on the winning standards

(1) Notes

According to the standards for the payment of the prize of this case, only the verification number printed on the ticket of this case and the verification number provided by the manufacturer and the verification number provided by the agricultural cooperative is identical, and the winning is recognized and paid as the winning lottery. In the case of the lottery of this case, since the verification number does not coincide, the winning money cannot be paid.

(2) Determination:

(A) According to the evidence and evidence Nos. 1 and 1 of this case, the lower side of the instant lottery ticket provides that “The detailed criteria for the winning shall be based on the criteria separately determined by the entrusted business entity’s Association of the Korea Lottery Association (hereinafter “instant terms and conditions”). Accordingly, Article 4(a) of the Defendant’s standards for the payment of the Defendant’s lottery winning money provides that “In the case of instant instant instant instant lottery tickets, it shall be recognized and paid as the winning lottery only if it conforms to the verification number printed on the lottery ticket and the verification number provided by the manufacturer and the verification number provided by the producer, in the case of instant instant instant lottery tickets (hereinafter “instant payment criteria”).”

(B) First, with respect to the criteria separately determined by the Association of Korea Lottery Association, and in particular, with respect to whether the provision that requires the payment of prize money is included in the contents of the instant lottery contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant, the term “detailed standard of prize” printed on the back of the instant lottery ticket includes the following: (i) the phrase “the details of payment of prize money” printed on the same page, “game method”, and so on; (ii) there is no evidence showing that the instant standard of payment is kept on the lottery ticket retail or it is possible to peruse it at any time on the homepage; and (iii) there is no evidence showing that the instant standard of payment is located in the lottery ticket retail or on the homepage, unlike the instant lottery ticket, the instant standard of payment is the most distinctive feature that the final purchaser can immediately verify the winning money purchased, and (iv) the contents of the instant contract are not identical to the instant standard of payment, and thus, the content of the instant lottery ticket agreement cannot be seen to be invalid only if it is not consistent with the Plaintiffs’ standard of payment.

(C) In addition, in full view of the following facts: (a) the instant payment criteria is deemed to be the principal contents of “the prize payment point”, “verification of forgery and alteration,” and “the payment deadline,” and it appears that the criteria for the prize are prescribed; (b) the provisions on verification number set passive criteria to prevent the payment of the prize to the winners by distinguishing forged or altered lottery tickets, rather than the active criteria for the determination of the prize; and (c) it is difficult to deem that the above verification number as above is prescribed in mind in cases where printing errors in this case or where the verification number does not coincide due to simple manipulation, the Defendant’s internal regulations on the verification number cannot be applied as a standard for the determination of the prize even in cases where there are errors in the printing of this case, such errors in the printing of this case would not have been applied if the winning number was considered as the basis for the verification number, i.e., the winning number would not have been paid if it is obviously inconsistent with those for the lottery ticket issuer, and thus, it would be doubtful that the winning number would not be paid for lottery tickets.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiffs the prize of KRW 100 million and each of the above amounts at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from September 22, 2006 to January 18, 2008, which is the day following the day when the plaintiffs demanded the defendant to pay the prize money, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment. Thus, the plaintiffs' primary claim is with merit.

Judge Lee Jong-ok (Presiding Judge)