logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2017.09.12 2017다228038
손해배상(기)
Text

The judgment below

The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Southern District Court Panel Division.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where an entrepreneur enters into a contract with a customer by using a standardized contract, he/she shall provide the customer with an opportunity to know the contents of the standardized contract by specifying the standardized contract in a generally anticipated manner according to the type of the contract and explain important matters of the standardized contract to the customer;

The term "important content" subject to the duty to explain refers to a matter that may directly affect the customer's decision on whether or not to conclude a contract or to take any action after entering into a contract in light of social norms, and what constitutes an important content among the terms and conditions of the contract cannot be uniformly said, and individual circumstances should be considered in specific cases.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da105383, Sept. 9, 2010). Article 3(3) of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions imposes an obligation on an enterpriser to explain to the customer the important contents of the terms and conditions so that the customer can understand them. Article 3(4) of the Act provides that if a contract has been entered into in violation of this provision, the customer cannot assert the terms and conditions as the content of the contract. The legislative purpose of the Act is to prevent the customer from being disadvantaged by having the customer enter into a contract under the terms and conditions with prior knowledge of the content of the terms and conditions and to protect the customer

(2) On June 23, 2016, the lower court accepted the first instance judgment, and changed the terms and conditions of the instant contract applicable to the Internet banking service contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant bank to the effect that the termination of the deposit contract can also be made through the Internet banking, and determined that such changed terms and conditions are subject to the duty to explain.

arrow