2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. Details of the contract (2) The plaintiffs shall import the whole quantity of the contract by the deadline for each performance period, and if the whole quantity of the contract is not paid, the plaintiffs shall revert to the Government Fund the total amount of the performance guarantee paid by them.

3. (1) The defendant shall refund the performance bond upon the request of the plaintiffs for the return of the performance bond attached to the report on the completion of the performance of the contract, including the return of the performance bond.

Plaintiff

In March 13, 2013, the Defendant participated in the public sale of import rights and entered into an implementation contract with the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “instant implementation contract”) with respect to 10,000 tons of the General Sovia (hereinafter referred to as “General bean”), thereby obtaining a successful bid for import rights, and entering into an implementation contract with the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “instant implementation contract”). The main contents are as follows.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the price of the general bean price decline due to the decline in the price of the general bean when the Defendant handled the insurance and distributed it to the general bean, which the Defendant used for seeds, and the Defendant reverted the entire performance bond (the bid price equivalent to 10% of the successful bid price) paid by the Plaintiffs under the instant performance contract to the Government Fund.

However, Article 1(1)(2) of the implementation contract of this case, which can be seen as the terms and conditions, provides that even 0.1% of the plaintiffs fail to perform import, the entire amount of the import performance guarantee shall be reverted to the Government Fund. This is unfair and invalid pursuant to Article 6 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act.

In addition, the defendant unilaterally amends the standard implementation contract in 2013 by taking advantage of his superior position.