[1] In a case where a building company constructed and sold a commercial building by designating a type of business for each shop, whether the buyer or the transferee of the position is obligated to comply with the "business sector restriction agreement" (affirmative), and whether the same applies to a case where there exists a business sector restriction agreement only on the "part of a store" among the entire stores (affirmative)

[2] The case where a business operator is exempted from duty to clarify and explain the important contents of the terms and conditions

[1] In a case where a building company constructed a commercial building and sold it in lots by designating a type of business for each shop, the purchaser or transferee of the position of the purchaser of the commercial building shall be deemed to have consented, barring any special circumstance, to allow the parties to the contract, such as restrictions on the type of business agreed in the sales contract explicitly or implicitly in relation to the occupant of the commercial building, and therefore, there is a duty to comply with mutual agreement on restriction on the type of business. In addition, even if only some of the whole stores are designated as a type of business, the same legal principle shall be applied to the buyer or transferee of the position of the designated store, barring special circumstances.

[2] Even though the important terms and conditions subject to the duty to specify and explain under Article 3 of the former Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (amended by Act No. 8632 of Aug. 3, 2007), in cases where a customer or his/her agent is well aware of the contents or is common and common in transactions, and the customer could have sufficiently anticipated such matters without a separate explanation, it cannot be deemed that the business operator has the duty to specify and explain such matters.

[1] Article 105 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 3 of the former Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions (amended by Act No. 8632 of Aug. 3, 2007) (see current Article 3)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Da45284 decided Dec. 27, 2002 (Gong2003Sang, 506) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60017, 6024 decided Jan. 26, 2006

Plaintiff

Defendant (Attorney Yang Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Na762 delivered on December 20, 2006

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Interpretation of a juristic act is clearly established by the parties’ objective meaning given to the act of expression. In a case where the objective meaning is not clearly revealed by the parties’ language and text, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, general common sense, and transaction norms so as to conform to the ideology of social justice and equity by comprehensively examining the contents of the language and text, the motive and background leading up to the juristic act, the purpose and genuine intent to be achieved by the parties, transaction practices, etc.

In addition, in a case where a building company constructed a commercial building for sale by designating a type of business for each shop, and the buyer or transferee of the position of the buyer or transferee of the shop, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to deem that the buyer or transferee consented to the seller or transferee of the position of the buyer or transferee of the shop to accept the obligation of restrictions on the type of business agreed in the sale contract explicitly or implicitly in relation to the occupant of the commercial building, and therefore, there is a duty to comply with mutual agreement on restrictions on the type of business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da45284, Dec. 27, 2002).

원심은 그 판결에서 채용하고 있는 증거들을 종합하여, 원고는 2002. 10. 14. 소외 1 주식회사로부터 성남시 분당구 (이하 동 및 지번 생략) □□상가(이하 ‘이 사건 상가 건물’이라 한다) 중 109동 302호를 분양받았고, 피고는 2002. 10. 4. 소외 1 주식회사로부터 이 사건 상가 건물의 같은 동 412호를 분양받은 사실, 원고와 피고가 소외 1 주식회사와 사이에 작성한 상가 공급계약서 양식은 총 4면으로 이루어져 있는데, 제2면 제6조(상가의 용도)는 제1항에 “갑( 소외 1 주식회사)은 사업계획 승인 또는 건축허가 내용의 범위 내에서 작성한 분양계획(또는 분양광고)의 내용에 따라 위 표시상가를 다음 용도로 지정·분양하고 이에 따라 개점 영업되도록 한다. 단, 분양계획(또는 분양광고)에 상가용도를 지정하지 않았을 경우에는 그러하지 아니하다.”라고 규정되어 있고, 그 바로 밑에 “◇ 상가의 용도 : ”라고 기재되어 해당 점포의 용도를 기입하는 공란이 있으며, 제2항에 “2) 을(분양계약자)은 위 용도로 개점 영업하여야 하며, 다른 용도로 변경하고자 할 경우에는 전체 공동주택 및 상가 구성과의 조화와 활성화를 저해하지 않도록 갑과 사전에 협의하여야 한다.”, 제3항에 “3) 을이 입점 후 용도를 변경하고자 할 경우에는 상가자치관리규정 등에서 정하는 바에 따른다.”라고 각 규정되어 있는 사실, 원고와 피고가 각 상가 분양계약을 체결하면서 작성한 계약서 제6조의 “◇ 상가의 용도 : ” 란에는 각 아무런 기재도 없으나, 소외 1 주식회사로부터 분양 업무를 위임받은 소외 2 주식회사의 소속 직원은 원고에게 분양하는 위 302호 상가에 관한 계약서의 제1면 하단에는 “※ 본 건물 내 태권도 같은 업종 신규분양치 않음”이라는 문구를, 피고에게 분양하는 위 412호 상가에 관한 계약서의 제1면 상단에는 “※ 보습학원”이라는 문구를 각 기재해 준 사실, 이 사건 상가 건물에 관한 분양계약 중 위와 같이 업종이 기재된 경우는 상가 전체 84개 점포 중 7개 점포였던 사실, 소외 1 주식회사는 2003. 4.경 원고를 비롯한 수분양자들에게, 이 사건 상가 건물의 분양이 완료되고 2003. 9.경 입점예정임을 공지하면서, 아울러 원고와 피고에게 분양한 각 점포를 비롯한 이 사건 상가 건물에 입점이 확정된 점포의 용도를 고지하고 수분양자들이 운영하고자 하는 점포의 용도에 관하여 연락을 주면 업종의 중복 여부를 알려주겠다고 안내한 사실 등을 인정한 다음, 피고가 위 412호 상가에 관한 분양계약을 체결할 때 굳이 “※ 보습학원”이라는 문구가 기재된 계약서를 받은 것은 그 기재 업종에 대한 독점적 이익을 보장받는 대신 다른 업종을 특정하여 분양받는 수분양자에 대해서도 그 독점적 이익을 보장하는 영업제한의무를 수인하는 의미이고, 각자 업종을 특정하여 분양받은 수분양자들인 원고와 피고는 상호 특정 업종에 대한 영업제한의무를 부담한다고 판단하였다.

In light of the above legal principles, the above interpretation and decision of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or inconsistent reasoning as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. Even though the important terms and conditions subject to the duty of explanation and explanation under Article 3 of the former Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (amended by Act No. 8632 of Aug. 3, 2007), in cases where a customer or his/her agent is well aware of the contents, or is general and common in transactions, and the customer could have sufficiently anticipated such matters without any separate explanation, it cannot be deemed that the business operator has the duty of explanation and explanation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da6017, 6024, Jan. 26, 2006).

In addition to the fact that at the time of concluding the sales contract on the above 4.12, the Defendant received the contract stating the specific type of business, “* Bosper Institute,” and the parties to the sales contract usually have an interest in the restriction on the category of business of the commercial building in the same size as the building of this case, and the contents such as Article 6 of the contract are the typical phrases used for the restriction on the category of business in the sales contract on the commercial building, it shall be deemed that the Defendant was well aware of the contents of Article 6 of the contract, or could have sufficiently anticipated without any separate explanation, because the contents of the contract are common in trade. Therefore, it shall not be deemed that the non-party 1 corporation has a duty to make a separate statement and explanation.

As seen earlier, the lower court determined that, upon entering into a sales contract with respect to a commercial building set forth in the above 412, the Defendant could not impose a business restriction obligation to guarantee exclusive profit for the buyers who purchase and sell the same type of business instead of obtaining exclusive profit from the stated business type, instead of obtaining a written contract stating the phrase “* KIBA”. Under such premise, the lower court determined that the Defendant did not violate the duty to specify and explain the terms and conditions because it was well aware of the same contents as Article 6 of the contract at the time of entering into the sales contract with respect to the commercial building set forth in the above 412, and that the Defendant did not violate the duty to explain and explain the terms and conditions. However, the lower court’s determination is somewhat insufficient in its reasoning, and is justifiable in accordance

3. The court below determined that the claim for the violation of the duty to specify and explain of the terms and conditions can only be made against the non-party 1 corporation that is the party to the contract for sale in lots and could not be made against the plaintiff who is a third party. In case where the business operator violates the duty to explain and explain part of the terms and conditions, the terms and conditions provisions in question could not be the content of the contract, and it can be asserted the effect of the violation as well as the third party who is not a party to the contract. Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the legal effect of the duty to explain and explain, but as seen earlier, unless the non-party 1

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)