(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.07.17 2014나9085 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.07.17 2014나9085

부당이득금반환

Text

1. The part against the defendant among the part against the plaintiffs of the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

2. The above-mentioned part shall be applicable.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the entry in this part of the basic facts are as follows: “The amount of claim and the amount of award” in attached Table 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance 2, 16 shall be read as “the amount of claim and details of loan” in attached Table 2, and the 11th page 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance [based grounds for recognition] shall be as stated in the corresponding part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding “Evidence 3, No. 23” to “the amount of claim and the amount of award” in attached Table 2

2. The reasons for this part of the parties’ assertion are the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (from 11, up to 17, up to 13, 3). Therefore, this part of the grounds are cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

3. Determination

A. Whether this case’s burden clause is a standardized contract

B. The reasons why the substantive selection and individual arrangements are written are as follows: (a) from 15th to 21th of the first instance judgment; (b) from 15th to 13th of the first instance judgment; (c) from 16th of the 16th 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 16th 16th 16th 16th 3th 19th 16th 19th 16th 19th 16th 19th 16th 19th 20th 20th

C. In order to be deemed invalid on the ground that Article 6(1) of the former Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions is an unreasonably unfavorable provision against customers pursuant to Article 6(1) and (2)1 of the former Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, it is insufficient to say that the standardized contract terms and conditions are somewhat disadvantageous to customers. The fact that the standardized contract terms and conditions are somewhat unfavorable to customers, and it should be recognized that the standardized contract terms and conditions preparing and using the standardized contract terms and conditions that are contrary to the legitimate interests and reasonable expectations of the contracting parties, thereby impairing sound trade order, etc.

In addition, the issue of whether a contract clause constitutes a "unfairly unfavorable clause to a customer" is likely to be caused to the customer.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2021.04.15 2020누58115

-서울고등법원(인천) 2020.11.27 2019나12341

-서울고등법원 2015.12.09 2015나2003745

-서울고등법원 2012.11.28 2012나48116

-서울고등법원 2017.05.19 2016나208626