logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.16 2015나42185
사용료
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 Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant had been admitted to the Plaintiff’s Internet and TV services with a three-year agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) but voluntarily cancelled the instant agreement prior to the expiration of the contract period, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to refund the gift penalty and discount fee (hereinafter “instant penalty”) stipulated in the instant agreement, and that the Defendant has the obligation to pay for the penalty equivalent to KRW 1,458,470.

2. The plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the defendant is liable to pay the penalty of this case, is not accepted without further review, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the contract of this case contains the content that the penalty of this case should be refunded at the time of early termination, as alleged by the plaintiff.

[1] Article 3(3) of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions provides that "a business operator shall explain the important contents of the terms and conditions so that the customer can understand them (Article 3(3) of the Act)," and Article 3(4) of the Act provides that "where a business operator concludes a contract in violation of paragraph (3) of the same Article, he/she cannot assert the terms and conditions as the content of the contract (Article 3(4) of the Act)." Thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff explained the content of the contract to the defendant, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the plaintiff's assertion was alleged otherwise, and therefore, the plaintiff cannot assert the contents of the contract of this case as the content of the contract of this case.

arrow