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 against the principle of trust and good faith, the terms and conditions are somewhat disadvantageous to customers. It is insufficient to say that the standardized terms and conditions are somewhat unfavorable to customers. It is insufficient to say that the standardized terms and conditions contractor abused its position in trade, thereby impairing sound trade order by preparing and using the standardized terms and conditions against the legitimate interests and reasonable expectations of the contracting parties, contrary to the principle of trust and good faith. Thus, whether the standardized terms and conditions are "any terms and conditions unreasonably unfavorable to customers," which falls under the grounds for invalidation of the standardized terms and conditions, should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the contents and probability of disadvantages that may arise to customers, the impact between the parties involved in the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2007Ma1328, Dec. 16, 2008; Supreme Court Order 2013Da214864, Jun. 12, 2014; etc.). If 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 if they are merely about the extent that they would be resumed or delayed to be provided under the Acts and subordinate statutes, they cannot be said to have an obligation to explain and explain to the business entity even in relation to such matters.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da87453, Apr. 27, 2007) is the Supreme Court's precedent.

2. The lower court, in light of the following circumstances, shall grant the stores allocated after drawing.