The validity of a standardized contract excluding the payment of interest on the money to be returned to the business operator at the time of termination (negative)

Article 9 subparag. 4 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, Article 548(2) of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Doz., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Dlusteteler Co., Ltd. (Attorney Young-young et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Madnasia

Changwon District Court Decision 2008Na3774 decided September 5, 2008

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Article 9 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions provides that "any clause of the terms and conditions concerning the cancellation or termination of a contract which falls under any of the following subparagraphs shall be null and void." Article 9 subparagraph 4 of the same Article provides that "any clause of the terms and conditions which provides for the cancellation or termination of a contract shall be null and void," and Article 548 (2) of the Civil Act provides that interest shall be added from the date on which the contract is received when the contract is terminated. Thus, the clause excluding the obligation to return interest in return of the money already received by the business operator due to the cancellation of the contract shall be presumed to be unfair disadvantageous to the customer, and it shall be deemed null and void unless there is a reasonable ground to justify this.

The court below held that Article 12 (2) which excludes the payment of interest in returning the advance received by the defendant as the restitution due to the cancellation of the contract of this case among the provisions of the sale price contract of this case on the grounds of its decision is null and void. It is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to Article 379 of the Civil Act, the interest rate of a claim with interest shall be five percent per annum, unless otherwise provided by other Acts and subordinate statutes or agreed by the parties. Thus, even if the Defendant deposits the advance received from the Plaintiff to the Defendant’s Depository, and the deposit rate is lower than the civil interest rate, the annual interest rate of five percent shall apply unless otherwise stipulated by the parties to apply the deposit rate. This part of the appeal is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)