1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, with the exception of the deletion of “this case’s partnership” No. 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “this case’s partnership”) and the addition of the following, thereby citing it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the determination of the Plaintiff’s additional assertion is invalid by the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, since the instant written consent constitutes a standardized contract and is unfairly unfavorable to the customer.

However, in order to consider the terms and conditions as invalid as a clause unfairly unfavorable to the customer, it is insufficient to say that the terms and conditions are somewhat unfavorable to the customer. It is recognized that the standardized contract contractor abused its position in the transaction, thereby causing disadvantages to the customer by preparing and using the terms and conditions contrary to the legitimate interests and reasonable expectations of the other party to the contract, thereby impairing sound trade order, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Da274904, Apr. 13, 2017). There is no evidence to support that the defendant or the promotion committee of this case abused its position in the transaction, and there is no evidence to support that the defendant or the promotion committee of this case prepared and used the written consent of this case by abusing its position in the transaction, and it is possible to file a lawsuit against the Promotion Committee of this case or E seeking the return of the instant contribution in light of the contents of the written consent of this case, it is difficult to view that the contents

B. Whether the obligee’s exercise of the obligee’s subrogation right by ex officio as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit is necessary to preserve the obligee’s claim is permissible in a case where the obligor is insolvent and it is necessary to prevent the reduction of the general property.