1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

Claim:

1. The reasoning of the judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

However, with respect to the defendant's assertion, the following judgments shall be added.

2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that imposing additional charges on the lessee for the overdue interest and overdue interest in the instant lease agreement and imposing additional charges on the lessee for losses incurred therefrom constitutes an unfair contract and thus null and void.

In addition to the terms and conditions attached to the lease agreement in this case, if the terms and conditions of the lease agreement on the front of the lease agreement are terminated even if the lease agreement is terminated, additional dues of 10% shall be imposed on the acquisition cost, etc. Therefore, as seen in the judgment of the court of first instance that the content of such individual agreement does not fall under the “Terms and Conditions Regulation Act” as stipulated in the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions (hereinafter “Terms and Conditions Regulation Act”).

Furthermore, the foregoing provision of loss compensation clause in a lease agreement is an estimate of a kind of amount of damages to compensate the damage suffered by the lease company if the goods are destroyed during the lease period or the lease contract is terminated earlier (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da52929, Feb. 9, 2001). Thus, even if the special law, such as Article 8 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, etc., is not applicable because it does not fall under the terms and conditions, if the estimated amount of damage compensation is unreasonably excessive under Article 398(2) of the

However, there is no loss whether such estimated amount of damages is “unfairly excessive” or “unfairly excessive.”

It is not sufficient that the amount of damages is less than the estimated amount of damages. This is the same in consideration of the economic status of the contractor, the purpose and content of the contract, the details of the scheduled amount of damages, the transaction practices and other various circumstances.