beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasons why this court should explain concerning this part of the basic facts are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance from 9 to 3, and 1. The basic facts are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, they shall be quoted in accordance
2. Judgment as to the plaintiff's primary claim
A. Under the premise that the instant contract constitutes a standardized contract under the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (hereinafter “Terms and Conditions Act”), the Plaintiff’s assertion is invalid pursuant to Articles 6(1), 6(2)1 and 11 subparag. 3 of the Terms and Conditions Act, since Article 5(4) of the instant contract was unfairly unfavorable to the customer, was lost fairness, or was unreasonably restricted to the extent that the customer would not achieve the purpose of the contract, or was unreasonably restricted to enter into a contract with a third party, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is invalid pursuant to Article 6(1), 6(2)1 and 3 of the Terms and Conditions Act and thus, pursuant to Article 5(1) and (2) of the instant contract, the Plaintiff is either entitled to free use of the software for repair work installed on the instant medical device (hereinafter “instant software”), or the Defendant is obligated to provide the Plaintiff with a password for repair work.
B. 1) First, we examine whether the instant contract constitutes a standardized contract subject to the regulation of the Standardized Contracts Act. Regardless of its name, form or scope, a standardized contract subject to the regulation of the Standardized Contracts Act refers to the content of a contract that one of the parties to the contract prepared in advance in order to conclude a contract with a large number of other parties. Therefore, an agreement, etc. individually concluded in a specific contract cannot be deemed a standardized contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da8353, Nov. 27, 2001; 2012Da11846, 11853, Mar. 20, 2015). As to the instant case, it can be seen as a comprehensive statement of health class and evidence No. 1 in the statement of evidence No. 1.