1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

The reasons for the court's explanation of this case are as follows, or the defendant's new or new arguments are stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment is added to the corresponding part of paragraph (2). Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Defendant B, “Defendant C”, and “Defendant D” of the judgment of the first instance court are different from “Defendant B”, “Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial”, “Co-Defendant C of the first instance trial” and “Co-Defendant D of the first instance trial.”

Additional Judgment

A. (1) As to the assertion that the provision on liquidated damages is null and void, the Defendant Company’s claim that Article 19(4) of the instant lease agreement, which is a provision on liquidated damages, is null and void pursuant to Articles 6(1) and 8 of the Terms and Conditions Act, or the Act on Contracts to Which a Local Government Is a Party (hereinafter “Local Contracts Act”).

) asserts that part of it is null and void in violation of Article 6 of the Act and Article 90 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

(2) As to the assertion of violation of the Terms and Conditions Act, Article 6(1) of the Terms and Conditions Act provides that “The terms and conditions which lose fairness in violation of the principle of trust and good faith shall be null and void,” and Article 8 of the same Act provides that “The terms and conditions which impose liability on customers for damages, such as unfairly excessive damages for delay, shall be null and void.

In addition, Article 6(1) and (2)1 of the Terms and Conditions Act that is unfairly unfavorable to a customer pursuant to Article 6(1) and (2)1 of the Terms and Conditions Act to be deemed null and void on the ground of “the terms and conditions which lose fairness contrary to the principle of trust and good faith,” it is insufficient to say that the terms and conditions are somewhat unfavorable to the customer. In addition, it is difficult to say that the standardized terms and conditions are somewhat unfavorable to the customer. The standardized terms and conditions contractor