(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.9.16. 선고 2015나8482 판결

The purport of the claim: The defendant shall be jointly and severally with the co-defendants of the first instance court and the plaintiff KRW 25,167,160 and the delay damages.

The purport of appeal: Revocation of the judgment of the first instance, and dismissal of the plaintiff's claim.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

Since the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment, it shall be accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act: Provided, That with respect to the defendant's assertion, the following judgments shall be added.

2. Additional determination

The Defendant asserts to the effect that: (a) imposing the period of interest and overdue interest in the instant lease agreement, imposing additional charges on the lessee to the amount of statutory loss, constitutes an unfair terms and conditions, which are extremely unfavorable to the lessee, and thus null and void.

In addition to the terms and conditions attached to the lease agreement of this case, the provision on losses in the provisions of the lease agreement of this case is added or modified separately to the effect that additional 10% of the acquisition cost, etc. shall be imposed in the case of termination of the lease agreement of the front of the lease contract, etc.

Furthermore, the foregoing provision on compensation for losses in a lease agreement is an estimate of a kind of amount of damages to compensate for damages suffered by a lessee if an article is destroyed or terminated during the lease period (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da52929, Feb. 9, 2001). Even if the special law, such as Article 8 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, is not applicable because it does not fall under the terms and conditions, and thus, if the estimated amount of compensation for losses is unreasonably excessive pursuant to Article 398(2) of the Civil Act, the court may reduce the estimated amount of compensation for losses. However, whether such estimated amount of compensation for losses is “unfairly excessive” is insufficient solely by the fact that the contractor’s economic status, purpose and content of the contract, details of the liquidated amount of compensation for damages, and other various circumstances, it is difficult to readily conclude that the aforementioned estimated amount of compensation for losses would result in the reduction of fairness by imposing unfair pressure on the obligor in the position of the economically weak (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da1606.

3. Conclusion

If so, the judgment of the first instance court that makes the conclusion is justifiable, the defendant's appeal is dismissed.