The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Under Article 6(1) and (2)1 of the former Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (amended by Act No. 10169, Mar. 22, 2010; hereinafter “former Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act”), in order to deem the terms and conditions to be null and void on the ground that they are unfairly unfavorable terms and conditions to customers, such terms and conditions are somewhat disadvantageous to customers. It is insufficient to say that the terms and conditions are somewhat unfavorable to customers. Moreover, it should be recognized that a standardized contract developer abused his/her position in trade, thereby impairing sound trade order by preparing and using a standardized contract contrary to the legitimate interests and reasonable expectations of the contracting parties.

In addition, the issue of whether a contract clause constitutes a “unfairly unfavorable clause to a customer” should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the content of the contract clause and the probability of disadvantages that may arise to the customer, the impact on the transaction process between the parties, and the relevant statutes and regulations.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2007Ma1328, Dec. 16, 2008; Supreme Court Decision 2013Da214864, Jun. 12, 2014). In a case where the terms and conditions are provided, even if they are provided, they are general and common in transactions, and thus, they could have sufficiently anticipated for customers even without any separate explanation, or are merely a degree of refluence or extension of those provided under the Acts and subordinate statutes, it cannot be said that the business entity has an obligation to explain and explain such matters.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da87453 delivered on April 27, 2007, etc.). 2. The lower court, in light of the following circumstances, based on the leased area of a store allocated after drawing.